For me it's so I can run my Android apps on a Pi without having to port those to another programming language, framework or OS. Plus it becomes another device on which I can test my Android apps if I choose to.
That doesn't mean it can't be used as an Application Engine which is how I am mostly using my Pi, how I would guess half the Pi sold are being used by commercial users, and how many makers and others are using it.
There's poo pooing, but there is also recomending the RPF suported OS due to it being more up to date, with clearly better support.n67 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:51 pmJust to be clear, I have no problem with someone putting together a working version of Android for the Pi.
I'd never use it, of course, but that's just me.
It just seems pretty clear by now that it won't get the stamp of approval from the powers that be.
And, history has shown, that without that stamp of approval, it is hard to get any traction here on this forum - look at all the various Ubuntus that have been floated - and how certain high-volume posters make it their business to pooh-pooh them at every opportunity.
But, again, there's no reason why it couldn't be done. And I'm sure that, eventually, it will be.
IMHO If you want to make a mobile tablet running Android, just buy a ready made one. A no-name or minor name one will be cheaper, smaller and in virtually all ways better than one you make yourself from a RPi.
You'll need to do more than attach a touchscreen...
RaspAnd costs, and is a copy of Lineage OS, thats why @konsta shut the project down
Many people don't realise that the GPL licence means taking someone else code and selling it is perfectly legal, almost encourged. Shame the project is stalled, but when you work on an open source project, this is what you need to expect.Some people will try and monetise your work, if you don't do it first.
That's simply not true. GPLv2 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licens ... .0.en.html) obligates anyone distributing a binary to release complete corresponding source code that matches the binary they're distributing. GPLv2 is actually very restrictive license and only way anyone can use GPLv2 licensed code is if they also open source all and any modifications they've made. Arne Exton hasn't provided source code for RaspAnd builds like he's legally obligated by GPLv2.jamesh wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 3:17 pmMany people don't realise that the GPL licence means taking someone else code and selling it is perfectly legal, almost encourged. Shame the project is stalled, but when you work on an open source project, this is what you need to expect.Some people will try and monetise your work, if you don't do it first.