Shared publicly  - 
 
I want to develop an application for my Android device. Unfortunately, the SDK is under some rather bogus terms. Terms that I'm not willing to accept. Anyone have any pointers for how to develop for Android without the SDK? I'm not afraid of reading, a bit of reverse-engineering, or the command line.

Alternatively, is the "android" tool in the SDK available under an OSI-approved license? Most of the SDK is, but that tool seems to be necessary to download platform descriptions. It is also the only tool I've seen for generating virtual devices, though I'm betting I can work around that since the emulator is largely QEMU-based and I happen to have access to at least one QEMU expert.
This is the Android Software Development Kit License Agreement. 1. Introduction. 1.1 The Android Software Development Kit (referred to in this License Agreement as the "SDK" and specifically...
1
Ross Hendrickson's profile photoLeon Roberts's profile photoBoyd Smith's profile photo
4 comments
 
I don't think you can develop an app for android without using the SDK. Your code has to be compiled to java byte code, then recompiled for the dalvik vm which AFAIK there isn't a different tool to take you to that step. If you do find something I'd be interested in knowing more about it.
 
+Ross Hendrickson, I know there are compilers for Dalvik that are under an OSI-approved license. Even if there weren't, Dalvik is well-documented so I could write one. Currently my problem is with the "android" tool, which fetches platform descriptions and generates virtual devices. There are other tools that are part of the SDK included in binary-only form. I'll want to replace all of those eventually, since I want my development environment to be available under an OSI-approved license.

I don't mind starting from scratch. I do mind non OSI-approved licenses. I'm thinking my next stop is the Android OSP to try and re-create, from the documentation in the AOSP, the SDK without any of the non-free bits.
 
+Leon Roberts, seems good. Unfortunately, I can't find a license for it either. That means it is effectively under a much more restrictive license than the official SDK. I will definitely mention it to developers that are less particular when it comes to licensing.
Add a comment...