Home | History | Annotate | Download | only in source
      1 <html devsite>
      2   <head>
      3     <title>Content License</title>
      4     <meta name="project_path" value="/_project.yaml" />
      5     <meta name="book_path" value="/_book.yaml" />
      6   </head>
      7   <body>
      8   <!--
      9       Copyright 2017 The Android Open Source Project
     10 
     11       Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
     12       you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
     13       You may obtain a copy of the License at
     14 
     15           http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
     16 
     17       Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
     18       distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
     19       WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
     20       See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
     21       limitations under the License.
     22   -->
     23 
     24 
     25 
     26 <p>The Android Open Source Project uses a few 
     27 <a href="http://www.opensource.org/">open source initiative</a>
     28 approved open source licenses for our software.</p>
     29 <h2 id="android-open-source-project-license">Android Open Source Project License</h2>
     30 <p>The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the
     31 <a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0">Apache
     32 Software License, Version 2.0</a> ("Apache 2.0"),
     33 and the majority of the Android software is licensed
     34 with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred
     35 license, there may be exceptions that will be handled on a case-by-case
     36 basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with
     37 system exceptions, which can be found on <a href="http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING">kernel.org</a>.</p>
     38 <h2 id="contributor-license-grants">Contributor License Agreements</h2>
     39 <p>All <em>individual</em> contributors (that is, contributors making contributions
     40 only on their own behalf) of ideas, code, or documentation to the Android Open
     41 Source Project will be required to complete, sign, and submit an <a
     42 href="https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual">Individual
     43 Contributor License Agreement</a>. The agreement can be executed online through the
     44 <a href="https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/settings/agreements">code review tool</a>.
     45 The agreement clearly defines the terms under which intellectual
     46 property has been contributed to the Android Open Source Project. This license
     47 is for your protection as a contributor as well as the protection of the
     48 project; it does not change your rights to use your own contributions for any
     49 other purpose.</p>
     50 <p>For a <em>corporation</em> (or other entity) that has assigned employees to
     51 work on the Android Open Source Project, a <a
     52 href="https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-corporate">Corporate
     53 Contributor License Agreement</a> is available.
     54 This version of the agreement allows a
     55 corporation to authorize contributions submitted by its designated employees
     56 and to grant copyright and patent licenses. Note that a Corporate Contributor
     57 License Agreement does not remove the need for any developer to sign their own
     58 Individual Contributor License Agreement as an individual. The individual
     59 agreement is needed to cover any of their contributions that are <em>not</em>
     60 owned by the corporation signing the Corporate Contributor License Agreement.</p>
     61 <p>Please note we based our agreements on the ones the
     62 <a href="http://www.apache.org">Apache Software Foundation</a> uses, which can
     63 be found on the <a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/">Apache web site</a>.</p>
     64 <h2 id="why-apache-software-license">Why Apache Software License?</h2>
     65 <p>We are sometimes asked why Apache Software License 2.0 is the preferred
     66 license for Android. For userspace (that is, non-kernel) software, we do in
     67 fact prefer ASL2.0 (and similar licenses like BSD, MIT, etc.) over other
     68 licenses such as LGPL.</p>
     69 <p>Android is about freedom and choice. The purpose of Android is promote
     70 openness in the mobile world, and we don't believe it's possible to predict or
     71 dictate all the uses to which people will want to put our software. So, while
     72 we encourage everyone to make devices that are open and modifiable, we don't
     73 believe it is our place to force them to do so. Using LGPL libraries would
     74 often force them to do just that.</p>
     75 <p>Here are some of our specific concerns:</p>
     76 <ul>
     77 <li>
     78 <p>LGPL (in simplified terms) requires either: shipping of source to the
     79 application; a written offer for source; or linking the LGPL-ed library
     80 dynamically and allowing users to manually upgrade or replace the library.
     81 Since Android software is typically shipped in the form of a static system
     82 image, complying with these requirements ends up restricting OEMs' designs.
     83 (For instance, it's difficult for a user to replace a library on read-only
     84 flash storage.)</p>
     85 </li>
     86 <li>
     87 <p>LGPL requires allowance of customer modification and reverse
     88 engineering for debugging those modifications.  Most device makers do
     89 not want to have to be bound by these terms. So to minimize the burden on
     90 these companies, we minimize usage of LGPL software in userspace.</li></p>
     91 </li>
     92 <li>
     93 <p>Historically, LGPL libraries have been the source of a large number
     94 of compliance problems for downstream device makers and application
     95 developers. Educating engineers on these issues is difficult and slow-going,
     96 unfortunately. It's critical to Android's success that it be as easy as
     97 possible for device makers to comply with the licenses.  Given the
     98 difficulties with complying with LGPL in the past, it is most prudent to
     99 simply not use LGPL libraries if we can avoid it.</p>
    100 </li>
    101 </ul>
    102 <p>The issues discussed above are our reasons for preferring ASL2.0 for
    103 our own code. They aren't criticisms of LGPL or other licenses. We are
    104 passionate about this topic, even to the point where we've gone out of our
    105 way to make sure as much code as possible is ASL2.0 licensed. However, we love all free
    106 and open source licenses, and respect others' opinions and preferences. We've
    107 simply decided ASL2.0 is the right license for our goals.</p>
    108 
    109   </body>
    110 </html>
    111