Some people got all high and mighty how they are unhappy that Google released Android under an Apache-style license as opposed to using the GPL, and how the company is not holding up to earlier promises and hints that they want to embrace open-source even more. Guess what:  Apache licenses are OSI approved. There are clear differences between open-source and free source, and I would expect more people to listen to Stallman before they go throwing around incorrect terms. While Google’s own license may not be quite the same as Apache, let’s note that free source activists probably oppose everything that is not GPL. I would think everyone knows by now that the GPL brings with it a large number of limitations, some which often take away the pleasure of reusing software. Certainly, it is nice to see code grow and expand as more people use it. But companies still need a technological edge and for them to support and help the growth of open and free software, they need to be given licenses like these. I wouldn’t even count it as the lesser of two evils, considering that the other alternative was a tightly regimented closed system. I only hope that when AT&T tweaks some code for their own network, they neither cripple core functionality nor forget to contribute at least financially.