Google Play missing from cheap tablet bought at Game

[Arthur]

so how does Amazon work then on their Kindle Fires? you have to use the Amazon app store and you can't access any Google services

Because Amazon has only an APK licence and does not have a GMSA agreement with Google. Hence no Google Play store or other mobile services. The APK software is still owned by Google, but its licence agreement (under the terms of the Apache EULA, which requires preservation of copyright) essentially allows anyone to do anything they wish with it. Subtle but important difference.

That statement is misleading: The only requirement is that the person making the fork ACCEPT the license. No permission from Google is needed.

Nothing misleading in what I say - rather many people are confused about the precise issues in "free" or "open" software.

A valid contract requires two elements: offer and acceptance. By accepting the licence conditions that Google stipulates, you enter into a binding contract with Google (though some jurisdictions ask questions about how explicit the acceptance actually is in any particular case). Contract law does not require any specific process, only offer and acceptance (through in SA certain types of contact have to be in writing, eg sale or property, HP agreements, to name a few). Apart from this, there are the usual owner's rights under copyright law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software "Proponents of free and open source software use proprietary or non-free to describe software that is not free or open source."

Free and open are two different things. Sometimes they occur together. Sometimes they don't. Free software often is proprietary as well. Google Chrome is free and proprietary, for example. Even "open" software has a range of meanings, and you need to look very carefully at the EULA and Ts&Cs to see what the real facts are. Much confusion reigns among end-users.

 

[OMB]

Because Amazon has only an APK licence and does not have a GMSA agreement with Google. Hence no Google Play store or other mobile services. The APK software is still owned by Google, but its licence agreement (under the terms of the Apache EULA, which requires preservation of copyright) essentially allows anyone to do anything they wish with it. Subtle but important difference.

I see, thanks (btw it's a real PITA I've been thinking of rooting my Kindle Fire because I can't access my gmail etc.)

 

[nicroets]

Nothing misleading in what I say -

You didn't intend to mislead the unwashed masses. You said forking requires a license. But it's not like a driving license or a mining license where the issuer can change the requirements.

 

[Arthur]

You didn't intend to mislead the unwashed masses. You said forking requires a license. But it's not like a driving license or a mining license where the issuer can change the requirements.

OK, thanks. What the licence requires inter alia is the inclusion of a copyright notice, an unmodified copyright notice for all unmodified files, and a notice of all modified files, including in any forked versions - and second-tier forked versions (ie forks of forks) also have to include these notices. Google could not impose such conditions of Android were in the public domain. The fact that Google doesn't charge for the software licence is a commercial detail that is not necessarily tied to ownership, copyright, open- or closed-source, etc. Each is a distinct matter.

 

[nicroets]

... The APK software is still owned by Google, but its licence agreement (under the terms of the Apache EULA, which requires preservation of copyright) essentially allows anyone to do anything they wish with it. Subtle but important difference.
...

I just want to point out how inexact people are when discussing ownership. For example someone can describe to you the changes he is making to "his" house, but the house may in fact belong to his wife, or his family trust.

Similarly it frequently happens that someone is the effective owner of something according to tax or accounting principles without being the legal owner.

And in software development circles, if someone says something is "open source", the audience will assume that it is "effectively" owned by the public.

Rightly now, I can only thing of one way to directly profit from being the owner of open source software: Let's say the software was licensed under GPL. Now a commercial vendor want to sell a product that contains it or a modified copy thereof, without allowing the end customers to inspect and modify the software. Then the owner can sell the vendor a second license of his choosing. It's rare, but it does happen.