Let me summarize that from a different point of view:
1. Google released all of the Android Operating System as open source. Everyone is welcome to modify and redistribute it.
2. There are some Google-developed applications that are closely tied to Google services. While these applications are freely available from the Android Market, they are proprietary, non-opensource, Google branded applications. Some of these applications come bundled with some Android-enabled phones (most notably, the G1) but they are not part of the Android system.
3. Some guy who made an (otherwise very good quality) modified Android distribution also distributed these proprietary apps with his distribution without having a permission to do that from Google.
4. I believe that companies have the right to protect their brands. Clearly Google wouldn't want its brand associated with anything not under its control.
Google's misstep is not in wanting to protect their brand; I don't think anyone would fault them for that.
The faux pas is that they apparently took a heavy-handed, lawyer-oriented approach to it, sending a cease-and-desist letter to a popular, well-regarded open-source hacker doing work on a platform that Google has promoted for its openness, who may not have even realized previously that what he was doing wouldn't be acceptable to Google.
Being in the right (both legally and ethically) doesn't make you immune to PR screwups.
Indeed, this could have been handled with understanding and tact, instead they throw their weight around.
Google should be willing to support people who support their platform in my opinion. Why not have the lead of the Android team approach him and offer him a trimmed down marketplace application (or the old version), and then sell the "google experience" through that store allowing you to upgrade your phone as need be?
That's a decent summary. One minor correction: Not all of the proprietary Google apps are available from the Android market. And some of the ones that are (e.g. Google Maps) depend on libraries that are not part of the open source Android code and are not downloadable through the market.
Some (a lot?) of the Google guys working on Android definitely get open source, but also have to contend with the realities of working at a Big Company. That's my impression at least. Reading the article highlights how some of them really want to help the community out - and are being allowed to.
I hardly think that's the case. Most of the C&D letters that Apple sends out aren't followed up by Apple's engineers publicly/vocally working around the legal issues to help the community out.
1. Google released all of the Android Operating System as open source. Everyone is welcome to modify and redistribute it.
2. There are some Google-developed applications that are closely tied to Google services. While these applications are freely available from the Android Market, they are proprietary, non-opensource, Google branded applications. Some of these applications come bundled with some Android-enabled phones (most notably, the G1) but they are not part of the Android system.
3. Some guy who made an (otherwise very good quality) modified Android distribution also distributed these proprietary apps with his distribution without having a permission to do that from Google.
4. I believe that companies have the right to protect their brands. Clearly Google wouldn't want its brand associated with anything not under its control.