In response to the Apache License there is GPL V2 code used in Android. Due to this anything associated with that particular code falls under GPL V2. An clipping from the Motorola Milestone forums regarding the legality. ""No it really isn't. Some people are just obviously not really well informed in the topic, which unfortunately doesn't prevent them from expressing a strong opinion based on half-truths and misinformation. Unfortunately, fact is: Motorola is not obligated to remove signaturechecking just because they're using (partly) GPLed code in their phones." The fact is that Tivoization under GPLv2 has never brought to court so to say Moto is NOT breaking GPLv2 is at least unproved. Even if the use of signed images (and not publishing the keys) is allowed Moto is STILL violating the GPL on several other points. Read http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.htm (these guys won over 100 GPL cases in and out of court and did not loose a single one, so I guess that they know the subject rather well) GPLv2: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. ” "What are "scripts used to control installation"? After having translated software from its source code form into executable format, the program quite often needs to be installed into the system. The process of installation is often automatized by installation scripts. Exactly those scripts are referred to by the GPL. Please note that this is of special practical importance in the case of embedded devices, since the executable program(s) need to be somehow installed onto the device. If the user is not given a way to install his own (modified) versions of the program, he has no way of exercising his freedom to run modified versions of the program. Sometimes, the process of installation is not facilitated by scripts, but by some other means (such as executable programs). The GPL text only mentions the word "scripts". But when reading and interpreting the license, it is clearly understood that the license doesn't specifically only mean "scripts", but any kind of software programs that are required to install a (modified) version of the compiled program. " Most definition I see of the Install/installation of a computer software component define it simular to this : "Installation (or setup) of a program (including drivers, plugins, etc.) is the act of putting the program onto a computer system so that it can be executed." So by using a commonly accepted definition someone (preferable a judge in a GPL court) can conclude that a program that is copied to the device but does not execute (due to signature check) is NOT installed, GPLv2 requires it CAN be installed by provided scripts hence Motorola IS violating GPLv2."