Datawind Inc. declared Android in Box Pack, using a Fork intead, Restricting download from Google Play

[bkpsu...@gmail.com]

I had a bought a Datawind Android UBISlate3G10 tablet because of Android 4.2.2 . The set got damaged after normal use. I deposited to the Company's authorised service centre at Mysore, India.

The service centre lost the handset.

Datawind replaced the lost Tablet with a new one, but with a forked Android OS.

This forked Android OS had their own custom-built app downloader app rather than Google Play App. It totally prohibited my using the tablet with another set of restrictive Terms & Conditions, which I didn't agree to approve.

The forked Android App. restricted me totally from downloading Apps from Google Play, unless I agreed to the Terms and Conditions.

All the email communications between me and the company are with me and could be shared with Google Team .

Datawind Inc., India, took back the tablet and returned me in full the price I had paid to procure the tablet in the first place.

But the issue remains - An open source FOSS/GPL software can't be used for restrictive practices.

Can this issue be passed on to Google's Legal Team? There is an unethical business practice going on.

The incident left a bitter taste in my mouth.

The issue is very serious.

Regards,
Rajib Bandopadhyay
FOSS enthusiast.

[Rinaldo Jonathan]

now what? 

see thread about Console OS stealing Android-x86. You think we can sue them? 

you can't do anything. 

basicly, you can take android, rename it like shitOS, change logo, and sell it. nobody has rights to complain. 

correct me if I'm wrong. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android-x86" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to android-x86...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to andro...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/android-x86.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Antony Stone]

On Wednesday 03 February 2016 at 07:51:59, bkpsu...@gmail.com wrote:

> An open source FOSS/GPL software can't be used for restrictive practices.

Yes it can - it can be used for anything you want (or anything anyone else
wants).

What the GPL prevents is the *distribution* of the software in a restricted
way - you're not allowed to distribute GPL software to someone without
allowing them to distribute it in turn.

But what the software is *used* for is not controlled by the GPL.


Antony.

--
Anyone that's normal doesn't really achieve much.

- Mark Blair, Australian rocket engineer

Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.

[Chih-Wei Huang]

Without seeing the actual license of the software you mentioned,
it's hard to comment it correctly.
I can just say I didn't see explicit violation of FOSS licenses.

Note though Android is an operating system built atop of
open source software, not all software on an Android device are
FOSS. Almost all Android devices contain some proprietary software.
In particular, Google Play Service is NOT an FOSS.
(so you should avoid using it if you really meant
you are a FOSS enthusiast)

It's your right to choose not use proprietary software.
But if you use them, you have to follow the license.

About Google Play Service, the story may be just
opposite to what you thought.
It's usually Google refused the vendors to bundle
Google Play Service. An android product must
pass the necessary criteria (CTS/CTS-V/GTS/...)
to get Google's approval to bundle GMS.
Some low end android products just can't meet
the criteria. That's why they can't use Google Play
and only bundle with 3rd app store.
Of course it's just a common situation I understand.
I'm not sure if it's the same case as you met.

2016-02-03 20:00 GMT+08:00 Rinaldo Jonathan <rinaldo....@gmail.com>:
> now what?
>
> see thread about Console OS stealing Android-x86. You think we can sue them?
> you can't do anything.
>
> basicly, you can take android, rename it like shitOS, change logo, and sell
> it. nobody has rights to complain.
> correct me if I'm wrong.

The Console OS is a totally different story.
It's a scam that cheated his investors from day one.
Copying android-x86 is allowed (by FOSS license),
but cheating is definitely not.
The law action against it is ongoing.


--
Chih-Wei
Android-x86 project
http://www.android-x86.org

[bkpsu...@gmail.com]

My illustrious compatriots,

Please bring the matter to Google Legal Team.

Google has a presence in India.

An Datawind tablet UBISlate 3G10 is readily available in the market.

The team will be able to investigate the matter.

I perused the electronic restrictive Terms and Conditions, but did not agree to it.

I did not make a copy of the Terms and Conditions, I would have had to agree to it or use a camera.

The copy of the Terms and Conditions is not necessary at all.

Declaring in the Box pack that the OS is Android, but not allowing me to use Google Play Store is restrictive against my using Android.

There is no legal problem in forking Android, but to use it for restrictive purpose is not legal, since Android is GPL/FOSS. Any fork of a FOSS/GPL software also remains FOSS/GPL by the same GPL license. It can't be restrictive!

I have no problem with Google play and 3rd party, sometime paid, software. That  use still remains my choice. GPL and FOSS doesn't restrict use of 3rd party proprietary software, provided it is bought legally.

I hope you understand the points, and forward this email to Google Legal Team.

I will release photos and emails exchanged with Datawind when requested to do so.

Note that Datawind understood my legal argument. That is why they took back the used tablet returning the full cost.

Regards,
Rajib Bandopadhyay

[Antony Stone]

On Wednesday 03 February 2016 at 14:29:03, bkpsu...@gmail.com wrote:

> Please bring the matter to Google Legal Team.

If you feel this strongly about the matter, I suggest you bring it to their
attention yourself - after all, you are the one with the complaint, and we
cannot represent you.

> Google has a presence in India.

This should make it easier for you.

> Declaring in the Box pack that the OS is Android, but *not* allowing me to
> use Google Play Store is *restrictive* against my using Android.

What reason do you have to believe that the Google Play Store app has been
licensed by Datawind from Google to allow it to be installed on this device?

The Play Store app is *not* GPL/FOSS.

Google would almost certainly be more interested in this device from a legal
point of view if the Play Store app *were* being distributed on a machine
without their agreement, than if it is *not* being distributed.

> *There is no legal problem in forking Android, but to use it for

> restrictive purpose is not legal, since Android is GPL/FOSS. Any fork of a

> FOSS/GPL software also **remains** FOSS/GPL by the same GPL license. It
> can't be restrictive!*

Please indicate which part of the GPL says this.

https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html


Regards,


Antony.

--
Pavlov is in the pub enjoying a pint.
The barman rings for last orders, and Pavlov jumps up exclaiming "Damn! I
forgot to feed the dog!"

[Thomas B. Prost]

Am Mittwoch, den 03.02.2016, 20:54 +0800 schrieb Chih-Wei Huang:
> > 2016-02-03 13:51 GMT+07:00 <bkpsu...@gmail.com>:

(...)

>
> Without seeing the actual license of the software you mentioned,
> it's hard to comment it correctly.
> I can just say I didn't see explicit violation of FOSS licenses.
>
> Note though Android is an operating system built atop of
> open source software, not all software on an Android device are
> FOSS. Almost all Android devices contain some proprietary software.
> In particular, Google Play Service is NOT an FOSS.
> (so you should avoid using it if you really meant
> you are a FOSS enthusiast)
>
> It's your right to choose not use proprietary software.
> But if you use them, you have to follow the license.
>
> About Google Play Service, the story may be just
> opposite to what you thought.
> It's usually Google refused the vendors to bundle
> Google Play Service. An android product must
> pass the necessary criteria (CTS/CTS-V/GTS/...)
> to get Google's approval to bundle GMS.
> Some low end android products just can't meet
> the criteria. That's why they can't use Google Play

As it's just mentioned here: What about the Android-x86 installations
and the use of Google (Play) Services or the whole framework ? I often
see annoying popups telling me that services were terminated :-(

[Susmita/Rajib Bandopadhyay]

Dear Mr. Stone,

Android is under GPL/FOSS because most packages inside it is from GPL/FOSS.

I don't have an access to Google Think Tank, whether in India or the
US! I am under the impression that Android-x86 group could be a good
platform to network.

Google Play store has very many 'Free' apps, and Google Play Store is
integral to Google Android.

FOSS/GPL part:

.... Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things...
...
... To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you
have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the
software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom
of others....
...
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights...
...
...When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with
respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit
operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against
the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid
circumvention of technological measures ...
...
... You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications
to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these
conditions:
...
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
released under this License and any conditions added under section 7.
This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact
all notices”. ...
...
...If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these
terms....
...
.....The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your
program into proprietary programs....
...

and many others.

I understand it would be just the same as speaking to a tree. You use
Google's free services without knowing GPL or FOSS ? I say this
because you ask me to quote from GPL / FOSS.
I am doing this as a gesture of decency. The next time I won't.

The next time your posts would be ignored.

[Hypo Turtle]

Seriously; maybe this article will clear up some of your misconceptions:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/debunking-four-myths-about-android-google-and-open-source/

Besides, and not mentioned in the articke only linux (the kernel) is under GPL all the system side; including gapps are under Apache2.0

Plus installing gapps is illegal in China (not sure if still the case); so if releasing Android devices without preinstalled, closed source PlayStore was an legal issue don't you think it would be brought up by now...

[Povilas Staniulis]

Android is licensed under Apache License 2.0, not GPL.
FOSS doesn't necessary mean GPL, there are other FOSS licenses too.

[Antony Stone]

On Wednesday 03 February 2016 at 17:18:48, Susmita/Rajib Bandopadhyay wrote:

> Dear Mr. Stone,
>
> Android is under GPL/FOSS because most packages inside it is from GPL/FOSS.

I don't believe that statement is correct.

> Google Play store has very many 'Free' apps, and Google Play Store is
> integral to Google Android.

1. "Free" is not the same as "Open Source".

2. The licence under which the applications in the Play Store are themselves
available has nothing to do with the licence covering the Play Store app
itself.

3. The Play Store app is very definitely not licensed under the GPL.

> FOSS/GPL part:
>
> .... Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you

> have the freedom to distribute copies of free software...

Thank you for quoting parts of the GPL. As you can see, everything you quoted
talks about *distributing* software, and the freedoms associated with that.

Nothing mentions *using* the software, and what may or may not be restricted
in that.

> I understand it would be just the same as speaking to a tree. You use
> Google's free services without knowing GPL or FOSS ?

Er, no, I believe I know the GPL sufficiently well.

> I say this because you ask me to quote from GPL / FOSS.

I asked you to quote from it because I wanted to see which part of it you
thought restricts the *use* of applications. I don't believe it does restrict
this, and I therefore invited you to enlighten me if you were aware of
somethign I wasn't. Unfortunately you have not shown me anything from the GPL
which refers to the use of applications.

> I am doing this as a gesture of decency. The next time I won't.
>
> The next time your posts would be ignored.

That's fine by me. Your choice.


Regards,


Antony.

--
Software development can be quick, high quality, or low cost.

The customer gets to pick any two out of three.

[Susmita/Rajib Bandopadhyay]

Sorry, Mr. Stone, for saying earlier that your later replies would be ignored.

I read the ASL also.
I read its difference with GPL v2 ASL at
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/11/why-google-chose-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2/

I could not find anything that warrants Datawind's rejecting Google
Play Store and using its own App installing app store other than mere
control.

I want to know as to what is within Datawind that it denies my use of
Google App Store to install free apps from there? Many brands have the
same tech. Isn't then the denial just posturing?

"...I asked you to quote from it because I wanted to see which part of it you

thought restricts the *use* of applications. I don't believe it does restrict
this, and I therefore invited you to enlighten me if you were aware of
somethign I wasn't. Unfortunately you have not shown me anything from the GPL

which refers to the use of applications..."

I was saying just the opposite! FOSS and GPL don't restrict us users!
It rstricts Poprietory application makers frrom using the platform
unless they release the developed software under GPL.

DATAWIND with its fork of Android and App installer restricted me from
using Android with Google App Store and free apps.

It is to address the developers' intent to keep proprietory software
closely guarded that ASL was used. It is said:
"...ASL,..., is a permissive license that is conducive to commercial
development and proprietary redistribution. Code that is distributed
under the ASL and other permissive licenses can be integrated into
closed-source proprietary products and redistributed under a broad
variety of other terms. Unlike permissive open-source licenses,
"copyleft" licenses (such as the GPL) generally impose restrictions on
redistribution of code in order to ensure that modifications and
derivatives are kept open and distributed under similar terms...."

I also read http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
wherein it is said, "...The Apache Software Foundation is a nonprofit
organization that is dedicated to open source software development. We
never knowingly incorporate patented technology in our own products
unless such technology has been offered free for everyone..."

Apache License is then restrictive for us users! At least, in the present case!

Regards for making me aware of the developments.

[Chih-Wei Huang]

2016-02-04 2:01 GMT+08:00 Susmita/Rajib Bandopadhyay <bkpsu...@gmail.com>:
> Sorry, Mr. Stone, for saying earlier that your later replies would be ignored.
>
> I read the ASL also.
> I read its difference with GPL v2 ASL at
> http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/11/why-google-chose-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2/
>
> I could not find anything that warrants Datawind's rejecting Google
> Play Store and using its own App installing app store other than mere
> control.
>
> I want to know as to what is within Datawind that it denies my use of
> Google App Store to install free apps from there? Many brands have the
> same tech. Isn't then the denial just posturing?
>
> "...I asked you to quote from it because I wanted to see which part of it you
> thought restricts the *use* of applications. I don't believe it does restrict
> this, and I therefore invited you to enlighten me if you were aware of
> somethign I wasn't. Unfortunately you have not shown me anything from the GPL
> which refers to the use of applications..."
>
> I was saying just the opposite! FOSS and GPL don't restrict us users!
> It rstricts Poprietory application makers frrom using the platform
> unless they release the developed software under GPL.
>
> DATAWIND with its fork of Android and App installer restricted me from
> using Android with Google App Store and free apps.

You seems to assume the whole Android system and its app
are licensed under GPL/FOSS. That's not correct.
The Android system contains many components licensed
under different licenses. In particular, the app installer
developed by DATAWIND is licensed under its commercial license.
I don't see why it can't impose its restrictions.

If you can provide a proof that DATAWIND's apps are based
on a copyleft license, your point is valid.
Otherwise I don't see how you could accuse it.

Besides, if you have co-worked with Google,
you would know Google also imposes similar restrictions
to all its partners.

Anyway, if you still think your point is correct,
free feel to bring it to Google Legal Team.
The topic is not related to android-x86

> It is to address the developers' intent to keep proprietory software
> closely guarded that ASL was used. It is said:
> "...ASL,..., is a permissive license that is conducive to commercial
> development and proprietary redistribution. Code that is distributed
> under the ASL and other permissive licenses can be integrated into
> closed-source proprietary products and redistributed under a broad
> variety of other terms. Unlike permissive open-source licenses,
> "copyleft" licenses (such as the GPL) generally impose restrictions on
> redistribution of code in order to ensure that modifications and
> derivatives are kept open and distributed under similar terms...."
>
> I also read http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
> wherein it is said, "...The Apache Software Foundation is a nonprofit
> organization that is dedicated to open source software development. We
> never knowingly incorporate patented technology in our own products
> unless such technology has been offered free for everyone..."
>
> Apache License is then restrictive for us users! At least, in the present case!
>
> Regards for making me aware of the developments.

[Susmita/Rajib Bandopadhyay]

Thank you, Mr Huang, for responding!

Without Mr, Stone I wouldn't have known that Google uses the ACL.

I don't know, and not sure either, whether developing using a GPL/FOSS
software including Linux one could release products with some other
license? Appears logically untenable!

FOSS/GPL is not restrictive to 3rd party software providers also, if
they choose to distribute their products in Linux based proprietary
system, provided they don't use any part of their software from Linux.

I am aware that the present forum is not the appropriate place for
discussing the issue. But there is no pure Android forum to discuss.
Android forum is empty!

I don't know how to reach Google and its legal team.

[Povilas Staniulis]

There is absolutely nothing illegal in making an Android fork.
Big companies do that too, for example Amazon. They even have their own
app store.

In fact, most Android device manufacturers use Android forks with their
own customized UI and stock apps.
Only Nexus devices run unmodified Android and Google only provides
Android source for those devices.

If you wanted normal Gapps on your device, why didn't you just root your
device and installed them ?

[Susmita/Rajib Bandopadhyay]

From your reply it appear that you have not read the thread.

I have no problem with forks of Android. But to bar me from using
Google Apps from Google Play store?
Forcing me to use Datawinds' own app store and agreeing to their Terms
and Condtions?
Forcing me not to use the device unless I agreed to Terms and Conditions?
Criminal intent!

Your suggestion to root the device appears as a great learning opportunity.

How do I root the device? Linux offfers a menu for me to do so. There
was no such menu with the Datawind tablet..

[Rinaldo Jonathan]

Its their fork. It is THEIR RIGHTS to NOT provide you play store, or load it with shitloads of thing that you dont want.
You think Amazon Kindle Fire, Nokia X, and BlackBerry 10 has official PlayStore?
And no, they arent criminal. Sorry.

If you don't agree with their terms, DO NOT USE THE DEVICE. You buy it then use it, means you have read and agree.
Throw it. Or recycle it. Nobody cares.
Google wont give a damn too.
TOS was made for this reason. Thats why READ IT FIRST!

How do I root you said? There are DOZENS of exploit out there.
Do you think android (except XiaoMi and CyanogenMod powered) has root this menu? NO!
You have to figure it yourself, or wait somebody else figure it out (which I think wont happen)

[Susmita/Rajib Bandopadhyay]

I am sorry to disagree!

When you are selling something in the market you are to agree to the
governments' norms and conditions.
Yes, you _are_ liable to comply to the government's directives and our
demands the way we want to be served.

We, the public, are the masters. We pay taxes to provide education to
the best of you, under a sacred promise that you will serve mankind
the best way you can. Not to be megalomaniacs! One Hitler is enough!

Unless you remove this caustic post of yours, someone will take steps
to bring it to your country's Judiciary, surely!

You have used and learnt from FOSS and patent-expired software, may be
even from some patented ones, agreeing to the Social Contract, living
with your ill-thought and unmonitored day-dreams, on an organised
system brought by the governments and conscientious individuals. Now
you are turning your back on that Social Contract! The declaration of
yours' is parasitic and narcissistic!

Good luck with your convoluted thoughts!

Be prepared to face the music!

> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Android-x86" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/android-x86/oEZHSNXFZDI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to

[Rinaldo Jonathan]

Here comes the stupid part.

Enjoy, guys. I'm out.

[Susmita/Rajib Bandopadhyay]

Yes, please stay out of my post and group discussion!

May I remain stupid and co-perate with similar stupid men, upholding
the dearest values of mankind!

I am quite happy with my stupidity.

[Susmita/Rajib Bandopadhyay]

When Datawind sold its device to me it did not get me to agree to its
Terms and Conditions.

After I bought the device it tried to, after 6 months with a
replacement device, but I disagreed.

I was paid back in full the amount I invested to buy the device!

[Povilas Staniulis]

Please, do yourself a favor and stop spamming the group.
We have more important things to discuss here. This isn't a place for
flame wars.
I'm out this as well.

[bkpsu...@gmail.com]

@Povilas Staniulis

Please stay away from false allegations of Spamming and Flame War. You should check the definition of spamming. You may go anywhere you choose. It is upto you and not me.

Check your email on 4 February 2016 at 10:04. You were the one who had stated, "... If you wanted normal Gapps on your device, why didn't you just root your device and installed them ?..."

So I sent you a personal message considering that you didn't want to answer in a public forum.

On hindsight it now appears a sort of "I am greater than thou". Not empathy or sharing information, but condescension.

I have posted a valid question. I will accept advice from empathic people. I can't be your punchbag, to help you find a meaning to your existence

I have understood what I had to understand and will send feedback to where it is needed.

[Rinaldo Jonathan]

Looks like he is too hard understanding android.

Please get a samsung or iPhone instead. Both are phone that are easy enough for d*mb people.

--

[Povilas Staniulis]

+1 :)

[Chih-Wei Huang]

I've banned this guy since continue off-topic misleading info
and insulting other developers.