1 files changed, 110 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/en/setup/licenses.html b/en/setup/licenses.html
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a2114a2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/en/setup/licenses.html
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+<html devsite>
+  <head>
+    <title>Content License</title>
+    <meta name="project_path" value="/_project.yaml" />
+    <meta name="book_path" value="/_book.yaml" />
+  </head>
+  <body>
+  <!--
+      Copyright 2017 The Android Open Source Project
+
+      Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+      you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+      You may obtain a copy of the License at
+
+          http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+
+      Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+      distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+      WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+      See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+      limitations under the License.
+  -->
+
+
+
+<p>The Android Open Source Project uses a few 
+<a href="http://www.opensource.org/">open source initiative</a>
+approved open source licenses for our software.</p>
+<h2 id="android-open-source-project-license">Android Open Source Project License</h2>
+<p>The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the
+<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0">Apache
+Software License, Version 2.0</a> ("Apache 2.0"),
+and the majority of the Android software is licensed
+with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred
+license, there may be exceptions that will be handled on a case-by-case
+basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with
+system exceptions, which can be found on <a href="http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING">kernel.org</a>.</p>
+<h2 id="contributor-license-grants">Contributor License Agreements</h2>
+<p>All <em>individual</em> contributors (that is, contributors making contributions
+only on their own behalf) of ideas, code, or documentation to the Android Open
+Source Project will be required to complete, sign, and submit an <a
+href="https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual">Individual
+Contributor License Agreement</a>. The agreement can be executed online through the
+<a href="https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/settings/agreements">code review tool</a>.
+The agreement clearly defines the terms under which intellectual
+property has been contributed to the Android Open Source Project. This license
+is for your protection as a contributor as well as the protection of the
+project; it does not change your rights to use your own contributions for any
+other purpose.</p>
+<p>For a <em>corporation</em> (or other entity) that has assigned employees to
+work on the Android Open Source Project, a <a
+href="https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-corporate">Corporate
+Contributor License Agreement</a> is available.
+This version of the agreement allows a
+corporation to authorize contributions submitted by its designated employees
+and to grant copyright and patent licenses. Note that a Corporate Contributor
+License Agreement does not remove the need for any developer to sign their own
+Individual Contributor License Agreement as an individual. The individual
+agreement is needed to cover any of their contributions that are <em>not</em>
+owned by the corporation signing the Corporate Contributor License Agreement.</p>
+<p>Please note we based our agreements on the ones the
+<a href="http://www.apache.org">Apache Software Foundation</a> uses, which can
+be found on the <a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/">Apache web site</a>.</p>
+<h2 id="why-apache-software-license">Why Apache Software License?</h2>
+<p>We are sometimes asked why Apache Software License 2.0 is the preferred
+license for Android. For userspace (that is, non-kernel) software, we do in
+fact prefer ASL2.0 (and similar licenses like BSD, MIT, etc.) over other
+licenses such as LGPL.</p>
+<p>Android is about freedom and choice. The purpose of Android is promote
+openness in the mobile world, and we don't believe it's possible to predict or
+dictate all the uses to which people will want to put our software. So, while
+we encourage everyone to make devices that are open and modifiable, we don't
+believe it is our place to force them to do so. Using LGPL libraries would
+often force them to do just that.</p>
+<p>Here are some of our specific concerns:</p>
+<ul>
+<li>
+<p>LGPL (in simplified terms) requires either: shipping of source to the
+application; a written offer for source; or linking the LGPL-ed library
+dynamically and allowing users to manually upgrade or replace the library.
+Since Android software is typically shipped in the form of a static system
+image, complying with these requirements ends up restricting OEMs' designs.
+(For instance, it's difficult for a user to replace a library on read-only
+flash storage.)</p>
+</li>
+<li>
+<p>LGPL requires allowance of customer modification and reverse
+engineering for debugging those modifications.  Most device makers do
+not want to have to be bound by these terms. So to minimize the burden on
+these companies, we minimize usage of LGPL software in userspace.</li></p>
+</li>
+<li>
+<p>Historically, LGPL libraries have been the source of a large number
+of compliance problems for downstream device makers and application
+developers. Educating engineers on these issues is difficult and slow-going,
+unfortunately. It's critical to Android's success that it be as easy as
+possible for device makers to comply with the licenses.  Given the
+difficulties with complying with LGPL in the past, it is most prudent to
+simply not use LGPL libraries if we can avoid it.</p>
+</li>
+</ul>
+<p>The issues discussed above are our reasons for preferring ASL2.0 for
+our own code. They aren't criticisms of LGPL or other licenses. We are
+passionate about this topic, even to the point where we've gone out of our
+way to make sure as much code as possible is ASL2.0 licensed. However, we love all free
+and open source licenses, and respect others' opinions and preferences. We've
+simply decided ASL2.0 is the right license for our goals.</p>
+
+  </body>
+</html>