Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Android (sistem de operare)" in Romanian language version.
In fact, during a presentation at the Google IO conference, Google engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux.(...)The problem with Google's approach is that it makes Android an island. The highly insular nature of the platform prevents Android users and developers from taking advantage of the rich ecosystem of existing third-party Linux applications. Android doesn't officially support native C programs at all, so it won't be possible to port your favorite GTK+ or Qt applications to Android
Over time, more of the code that makes up Android will be released, but at this point, we have been concentrating on shipping an SDK that helps application developers get started. In short: Stay tuned.
Android is proprietary, despite being marketed as open source. Android has a compatibility pledge, signed and kept behind closed doors. Android has no governance model, nor any indication there will be one. Android has no spec, and the license prohibits alternative implementations, as that's not a use licensed by Google in the SDK license. Android is completely controlled by Google, and Google reserves the right to kill off competitors applications if they hurt Google financially, etc. It's only as open as it is in Google's financial interest to allow openness, by design.
Frankly, I don't understand why Google intends to ignore the vast amount of existing implementation out there. It seems like a bad case of "not invented here" to me. Ultimately, this will slow adoption. There are already too many Java platforms for the mobile world and this is yet another one
There is a bunch of other rather objectionable stuff, but dear me, this is pretty bad as far as license agreements for pseudo-open-source software go
And don't hold your breath, but the same cell phone-obsessed tech watchers say it won't be long before Google jumps headfirst into the phone biz. Phone, anyone?
