SDK Update?

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Gil

unread,
May 9, 2008, 9:23:05 PM5/9/08
to Android Developers
It's been more than two months since the release of m5-rc15. Can
anyone from Google give us an update on the next SDK release schedule?

Evan JIANG

unread,
May 9, 2008, 9:55:40 PM5/9/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
Good question. In the same time, Apple had released 5 updates of iphone sdk.

Adriano Crestani

unread,
May 10, 2008, 10:20:14 AM5/10/08
to Android Developers
I just wonder when is the "soon" release date

On May 9, 9:55 pm, "Evan JIANG" <first...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good question. In the same time, Apple had released 5 updates of iphone sdk.
>

caliente

unread,
May 10, 2008, 12:57:47 PM5/10/08
to Android Developers
Huh? Is this a fair comparison?

Android is a preview release, not a shipped product.

I wouldn't care about another SDK update until the product is open
sourced where updates will be orders of magnitudes greater. The
current SDK and the ADC are enough incentives for experimenting and
establishing a base on the forthcoming Android market place. Let the
OHA teams concentrate on the initial shipped product--first impression
is of utmost importance.


On May 9, 6:55 pm, "Evan JIANG" <first...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good question. In the same time, Apple had released 5 updates of iphone sdk.
>

Oscar Castaneda

unread,
May 10, 2008, 1:16:30 PM5/10/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
I agree. However, it would be really helpful to have an updated SDK, even for first impressions. I just hope "soon" will be "sooner".
--
best,
-oscar

Oscar Castañeda

Biosopher

unread,
May 11, 2008, 11:16:26 PM5/11/08
to Android Developers
We need regular updates...especially because this isn't a shipped
product so Google should be providing updates more rapidly. Google's
stated approach to dev rapid prototyping so they should be putting out
2 new SDKs for each Apple SDK.

That said, I'm glad they didn't put out one during the last month of
the Round One Challenge. A new release might have broken one of the
many work arounds I'd created for the many issues I addressed for
submitting for Round 1.

Now though, I hope many of those bugs have been squashed in the past 2
months. SO....! Please give us the new SDK as I'm sure I'm no
different from other developers...holding off dev until the new
release comes out.

maceghost

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 1:24:54 AM6/18/08
to Android Developers
Anyone from google care to comment on this ? It seems like r15 is a
bit buggy, an update would be in order...

Josh Guilfoyle

unread,
Jun 27, 2008, 1:13:34 PM6/27/08
to Android Developers
There is no official comment from Google, but after talking to several
sources on the team, it is quite clear that they do not expect a
release until the handsets launch. The ADC round 1 winners are now
under NDA with Google to get access to private updates which they are
not allowed to discuss or demonstrate publicly.

For more information, read my blog entry:

http://devtcg.blogspot.com/2008/05/detail-of-next-public-sdk.html

On Jun 17, 10:24 pm, maceghost <macegh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone from google care to comment on this ?  It seems like r15 is a
> bit buggy, an update would be in order...
>
> On May 11, 8:16 pm, Biosopher <biosop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We need regular updates...especially because this isn't a shipped
> > product so Google should be providing updates more rapidly.  Google's
> > stated approach to dev rapid prototyping so they should be putting out
> > 2 new SDKs for each AppleSDK.
>
> > That said, I'm glad they didn't put out one during the last month of
> > the Round One Challenge. A new release might have broken one of the
> > many work arounds I'd created for the many issues I addressed for
> > submitting for Round 1.
>
> > Now though, I hope many of those bugs have been squashed in the past 2
> > months.  SO....!   Please give us the newSDKas I'm sure I'm no

Shane Isbell

unread,
Jun 27, 2008, 4:10:40 PM6/27/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
If that's the case, Google is just another closed, mobile player and Android is just another mobile system that will fragment the market. We've all been had. But thanks for the update.
 
Shane

Shane Isbell

unread,
Jun 27, 2008, 5:23:57 PM6/27/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
As a technology Android is a marginal improvement over say a full CDC platform; the real excitement, at least for me personally, was that individual developers could move in and change the industry because they would finally be able to enter and push ideas before the platform was mature and before all the big players began layering the existing mobile ecosystem over Android.
 
The sad part is that by the time Android developers get the SDK and can finally enter the fray, it will be too late. All the big players will have slithered their tentacles through every nook and cranny, leaving the individual developer gazing onwards, hands grasping into the empty air.
 
Nokia has a good developer focus and I know has even been at odds with carriers over this at times. Symbian also has a predominant, established position in the market. I'm hoping that they and the other handset manufacturers can get a UI framework that rivals Android so that we can finally get things moving. This doesn't at all solve the problems with the ecosystem, but at least the market size will be substantial out of the gate. We can also look to a leader who understands mobile.
 
I suppose that Android will be successful as a platform, but I have my doubts about how open it will really be once it wiggles onto the device.
 
Shane

gas...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 7:17:57 AM6/28/08
to Android Developers
Ok, now, in the same time, Apple had released 8 updates of iphone
sdk.

It's not about tech, it about how people(community) thinking.

--
Fred

plusminus

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 8:23:37 AM6/28/08
to Android Developers
> There is no official comment from Google, but after talking to several
> sources on the team, it is quite clear that they do not expect a
> release until the handsets launch.

WTF ?!?!?! That sounded like that there may be no update to the SDK
until the handsets launch?
Exactly no one would profit from such a decision!

I started a petition:
--> http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss/browse_thread/thread/957fa043e2a199b6

I hope I misunderstood you o_O

Regards, plusminus
http://anddev.org
# Worlds largest Android Development Community / Tutorials

Joa

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 11:37:31 AM6/28/08
to Android Developers
Great write-up Josh, just as I thought. Thanks for the legwork.
NDAs, geez. What a sham.

Romain Guy

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 2:03:13 PM6/28/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
> WTF ?!?!?! That sounded like that there may be no update to the SDK
> until the handsets launch?
> Exactly no one would profit from such a decision!

There has been no official announcement either way, please do not make
any conclusion based on wild guesses.

--
Romain Guy
www.curious-creature.org

plusminus

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 2:20:29 PM6/28/08
to Android Developers
i was just guessing to, using "sounded like" and "maybe"...
Lets pray it is not so!

Joa

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 2:05:02 PM6/29/08
to Android Developers
Romain,
I suppose I don't have to tell you that a great number of coders
invested a good amount of time.
Many had been in it for the Challenge only, I am sure, but then
there's a bunch who like to code and create a valuable product.
By now it should be clear that the community expects more. Way more...
in terms of open process. I can't believe there's a cordoned-off
inside track. Frankly I am not aware this is in the open source
playbook. Did Google write an amendment we've missed?
You are well respected out here as you've been assisting Android
developers including me for months now. Thanks for breaking the
silence (a little). Perhaps you are personally unhappy with the whole
situation yourself. I bet some are...
For everybody's sanity, please re-open communication channels and
access to SDK updates.
JP

André Charles Legendre

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 3:57:40 PM6/29/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
I would like to say that for Android community it would be a must if
we could get new SDK releases.

I think that Android team should go to the following link at FSF.org

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions


You would find the following text :

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or
any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them
privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations
(including companies), too; an organization can make a modified
version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the
organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way,
the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to
release it is up to you.

It seems to me that, as soon as Android team publish new SDK release
to the winners (including Linux and other GPL code) they should
publish it with GPL license and it should be public to all of us.

I would like to have official Android team opinion about that, it
seems to me very important.

I just cannot believe that Android team could made some major GPL
violation with the agreement of Google legal division.
Sometime we make mistake, sometime it is better to correct them.

Regards

Andre Charles Legendre

Romain Guy

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 4:06:15 PM6/29/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
There is no violation of the GPL. All the GPL code modified by Google
has been released publicly (for instance here:
http://code.google.com/p/android/downloads/list).

--
Romain Guy
www.curious-creature.org

Mark Armendariz

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 5:49:29 AM6/29/08
to Android Developers
Josh, I have to agree with Joa. Thanks for the inside info!! The
fact that sdk updates are withheld from the earliest of adopters is
ridiculous.

David Given

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 5:19:00 PM6/29/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
Mark Armendariz wrote:
> Josh, I have to agree with Joa. Thanks for the inside info!! The
> fact that sdk updates are withheld from the earliest of adopters is
> ridiculous.

Yes, I agree that this is clearly unacceptable. Obviously we should
immediately demand our money back.

--
┌─── dg@cowlark.com ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│ "I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my
│ telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out
│ how to use my telephone." --- Bjarne Stroustrup

signature.asc

plusminus

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 7:17:55 PM6/29/08
to Android Developers
Maybe they have reasons why they are not releasing a new one. But I at
least want to know why :(
> signature.asc
> 1KDownload

Joa

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 10:55:16 PM6/29/08
to Android Developers


On Jun 29, 12:57 pm, "André Charles Legendre"
<andre.legen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just cannot believe that Android team could made some major GPL
> violation with the agreement of Google legal division.
> Sometime we make mistake, sometime it is better to correct them.

I wouldn't expect Google to fail on a technicality like that. The
disappointment is in failing expectations raised by the promises made
- go back to the "featured video" on code.google.com and listen to
when "Sergey Brin and Steve Horowitz discuss the availability of the
SDK, that it will be open source in the future". That was posted on
youtube last year. Listen to what Sergey Brin says or, for
convenience, here is a transcript of part of the presentation:

"Android ... is a new open source operating system and software
platform for mobile phone. Just like I learned how to write great
services and software upon free tools for the web, like Linux and GNU,
now with Android, you will be able to do the exact same things on
mobile phones. The software is all free, the source is completely
available and we expect great new powerful application to be developed
on it. The SDK is being released right now, and you can download
it..."

What happened?

André Charles Legendre

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 1:08:36 AM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
Hi

You will find below a question and its answer coming from :

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA


Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?

No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the
right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to
distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered
software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by
writing to license-...@fsf.org.

If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other
copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you
would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.


I would like to have an answer from Android team about this FSF
position about NDA and by extension I would like to know if Android
Team plan to publish new release to all of us.
All of us got big damages by the fact that we are locked and that we
cannot compete anymore with people having last release.
Some young company, who invested a lot around android are now
completely stuck because of this issue.

In any case it seems to me that most of Android community think that
it is not fair to keep private new release of SDK.

Regards

Andre Charles Legendre

André Charles Legendre

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 1:15:18 AM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com

Shane Isbell

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 1:42:20 AM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
Interesting point. It looks as though Google is releasing GPL modified code for public releases but not for the private, NDA distributions.
 
Shane

André Charles Legendre

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 2:28:29 AM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
Hi Shane

yes GPL limits NDA.
It seems that Android OS should not be published to anybody (Challenge
winners, phone operators, phone manufacturers etc..) against any NDA.

Android OS is mainly GPL as it is coming from linux.

SDK is mainly Apache V2 license.

But as Java is GPL2 now (not specs but code) it seems to me that
javadoc from Open Java is GPL also.

About NDA and Apache V2 it s interesting to know that it is some
discussions inside the Apache foundation about limits of what you can
put in NDA not to violate open standard requirements.

To explain that we are not completely stupid to think that protecting
new versions of SDK by NDA violate Open Standard Requirements, you
will find below a document coming from :

http://www.opensource.org/osr

Open Standards Requirement for Software
Mon, 2006-07-24 22:14 — Michael Tiemann
The Requirement

An "open standard" must not prohibit conforming implementations in
open source software.
The Criteria

To comply with the Open Standards Requirement, an "open standard" must
satisfy the following criteria. If an "open standard" does not meet
these criteria, it will be discriminating against open source
developers.

1. No Intentional Secrets: The standard MUST NOT withhold any
detail necessary for interoperable implementation. As flaws are
inevitable, the standard MUST define a process for fixing flaws
identified during implementation and interoperability testing and to
incorporate said changes into a revised version or superseding version
of the standard to be released under terms that do not violate the
OSR.
2. Availability: The standard MUST be freely and publicly available
(e.g., from a stable web site) under royalty-free terms at reasonable
and non-discriminatory cost.
3. Patents: All patents essential to implementation of the standard MUST:
* be licensed under royalty-free terms for unrestricted use, or
* be covered by a promise of non-assertion when practiced by
open source software
4. No Agreements: There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution
of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form
of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard.
5. No OSR-Incompatible Dependencies: Implementation of the standard
MUST NOT require any other technology that fails to meet the criteria
of this Requirement.


I think that Android team, should give back some comments.

Regards

Andre Charles Legendre

Joa

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 9:47:13 AM6/30/08
to Android Developers
I don't believe Andre is on to much. I am not spending a terrible
amount of time this morning, so quickcheck, please help me out.
1. The SDK itself... that hasn't been released open source anyhow...
No discussion there.
2. The Linux derivative work might not have changed since posted on
the code page. Carriers are a different topic, but they can post the
source code with release of branded handsets and they are complying
with GPL but it's not of real use to anyone
3. I've downloaded the Android Eclipse plugin from the code page
however. I suppose it is considered derivative work and falls under
the Eclipse Public License. Up until m3-rc37 they've been on the ball.
m5-rc14 and m5-rc15 are not to be found, so they missed that. Big
deal, it should be easy to update the download site, no reason to get
hot about that unless the EPL enforcement police objects (now is there
such a thing). For inside-track SDK releases that needed changes to
the Eclipse plugin... all they need to do is release it to the NDA'ed
parties and they're OK, I believe.


On Jun 29, 10:42 pm, "Shane Isbell" <shane.isb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting point. It looks as though Google is releasing GPL modified code
> for public releases but not for the private, NDA distributions.
>
> Shane
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM, André Charles Legendre <
>
> andre.legen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi
>
> > You will find below a question and its answer coming from :
>
> >http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA
>
> > Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure
> > agreement?
>
> > No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the
> > right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to
> > distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.
>
> > If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered
> > software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by
> > writing to license-violat...@fsf.org.

Digit

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 10:11:47 AM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
huu ? I think there is a misunderstanding there, the M5 Eclipse plugin is available:

http://android.googlecode.com/files/adt-m5-rc14.tar.gz

its the first entry on the download page at:

http://code.google.com/p/android/downloads/list

Mark Murphy

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 10:14:48 AM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
> 2. The Linux derivative work might not have changed since posted on
> the code page.

Not to mention the git repository (http://git.android.com/) has been
updated within the past 12 days. It shows dozens of commits in the past
two months.

I would think the burden is on Mr. Legendre or Mr. Isbell to demonstrate
that the kernel being distributed to people as binaries differs from what
was available at the repository at time of distribution and that the
source to those GPLv2 binaries is not available by written request. So
far, I have seen no such proof from either person, or anyone else.

> 3. I've downloaded the Android Eclipse plugin from the code page
> however. I suppose it is considered derivative work and falls under
> the Eclipse Public License. Up until m3-rc37 they've been on the ball.
> m5-rc14 and m5-rc15 are not to be found, so they missed that. Big
> deal, it should be easy to update the download site, no reason to get
> hot about that unless the EPL enforcement police objects (now is there
> such a thing). For inside-track SDK releases that needed changes to
> the Eclipse plugin... all they need to do is release it to the NDA'ed
> parties and they're OK, I believe.

Is the Android Eclipse plug-in GPLv2? If not, does the license it is under
require source distribution?

I dislike open source violations as much as the next guy, but great
accusations require great proof, and I have not yet seen such proof.

--
Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)
http://commonsware.com
_The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ -- Available Now!


Shane Isbell

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 11:37:05 AM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Mark Murphy <mmu...@commonsware.com> wrote:

> 2. The Linux derivative work might not have changed since posted on
> the code page.

Not to mention the git repository (http://git.android.com/) has been
updated within the past 12 days. It shows dozens of commits in the past
two months.

I would think the burden is on Mr. Legendre or Mr. Isbell to demonstrate
that the kernel being distributed to people as binaries differs from what
was available at the repository at time of distribution and that the
source to those GPLv2 binaries is not available by written request. So
far, I have seen no such proof from either person, or anyone else.
Thanks for that nugget of information Mr. Murphy, but really how am I to dig up a distribution I have no access to?  I am merely pointing out that the download page that Romain said hosts Google's GPL code to hasn't been updated (since Feb. 08).
 
Shane

Mark Murphy

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 12:08:11 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
> Thanks for that nugget of information Mr. Murphy, but really how am I to
> dig up a distribution I have no access to?

My point exactly.

> I am merely pointing out that the
> download page that Romain said hosts Google's GPL code to hasn't been
> updated (since Feb. 08).

And if that's what you posted, I'd've had no quibble.

But you said (June 30th, 1:42am):

"Interesting point. It looks as though Google is releasing GPL modified code
for public releases but not for the private, NDA distributions. "

And I'm looking for any proof backing up this statement.

I'm not saying you're wrong -- you could very well be right. But proof
entails demonstrating that the "private, NDA distributions" are receiving
binaries of GPLv2'd code that do not reflect the Git repository or the
tarball.

Shane Isbell

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 12:23:57 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Mark Murphy <mmu...@commonsware.com> wrote:

> Thanks for that nugget of information Mr. Murphy, but really how am I to
> dig up a distribution I have no access to?

My point exactly.

> I am merely pointing out that the
> download page that Romain said hosts Google's GPL code to hasn't been
> updated (since Feb. 08).

And if that's what you posted, I'd've had no quibble.

But you said (June 30th, 1:42am):

"Interesting point. It looks as though Google is releasing GPL modified code
for public releases but not for the private, NDA distributions. "
Now that we are into the minutia, a git repository is not a distribution. And yes, I know that GPL does not require a distribution of code, just that the code is available. I am starting to feel like that Chaplin character that picked up the red flag in the "The Great Dictator"
 
Shane

André Charles Legendre

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 12:35:32 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
Hi

If Android OS has not been improved from February it would be even
worse. I would mean that this project is not well and alive.

If we consider that SDK is not an Open Source project it would solved
also many issues but it would mean that the code is all new and not
tested and I am not sure that it would be a good news..

But SDK use a lot of open source projects : WebKit, OpenGl ES, SGL,
OpenCore, FreeType, eclipse, linux libraries etc...

The free side give a big competitive advantage to Android, because
Android get very good code, ready made and tested.
And Android get a good image and use it because it is 'Open' at the
contrary of some competitors.

As some of libraries of Android SDK are derivative work from projects
licensed under GPL, Berkley etc... it is not so simple to say that
Android SDK is not or does not needed to be open source.

My aim is not to open a class action etc... my aim is to get attention
of Android team on this issue.

As Android Team want and say that Android is an open project it would
be nice for us that they release last version to us.

Regards

Andre Charles Legendre

Joa

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 1:01:48 PM6/30/08
to Android Developers


On Jun 30, 9:35 am, "André Charles Legendre"
<andre.legen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> If Android OS has not been improved from February it would be even
> worse. I would mean that this project is not well and alive.
Not sure about the improved part it certainly has changed. Check out
the Google I/O keynote video where Android is shown off. It sure looks
different from what we've got with mc5-rc15

>
> If we consider that SDK is not an Open Source project it would solved
> also many issues but it would mean that the code is all new and not
> tested and I am not sure that it would be a good news..
>
> But SDK use a lot of open source projects : WebKit, OpenGl ES, SGL,
> OpenCore, FreeType, eclipse, linux libraries etc...
>
> The free side give a big competitive advantage to Android, because
> Android get very good code, ready made and tested.
> And Android get a good image and use it because it is 'Open' at the
> contrary of some competitors.

You hit it on the head. Let's put that little open source audit of
ours to rest. When Google go out an set aside $10mio to throw at
people like us, you can rest assured they set aside an equal amount
(or more) to pay IP lawyers to vet their strategy and every step they
take along the way.

The thing is... values got under the wheels here. Not everything
that's possible is in fact desirable. "Going for it" is the mark of
EVIL doers and Google look pretty shabby right now.

André Charles Legendre

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 1:35:03 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
Hi Joa

You seems to forget the main things :

Does Android SDK need to be open source as using a lot of Open Source code ?

If yes are Open Source licenses compatible with NDA ?

It seems that SDK use GPL code and should not be published under NDA.
It even seems that NDA is not compatible wit open source initiative
rules whatever open source license you have.

It means that Android teams should publish it to us as soon as possible.

Not only to be respectful of license but to be respectful for people
who started here because they trusted Android team.

If SDK is closed; it should be official because open is written
everywhere in Android website and many people can misunderstand.

If you mean that Google does not care because that they have so much
money and lawyers that they have not to respect licenses, it seems to
me a very poor argument.

And I cannot believe that anybody in Google could have this way of thinking.

Mistake has a bigger probability.
Mistakes can always be corrected.

Regards

Andre Charles Legendre

Shane Isbell

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 2:01:12 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
I chatted with Mark M. offline and I would like to clarify a few things. First, I agree that leveling charges of license violations is serious, personally I doubt Google is that stupid. I'm merely pointing out that when Romain gave a link of released GPL distributions, they were all outdated, so I didn't think it was a valid response to Andre. Google doesn't need to do an actual archived distribution, if the modified code is in the git repository. The only people that are in a position right now to verify anything are the OHA and other individuals with access to the distributions.
 
What I can say that if Google is having these accusations leveled against them, it is because of their dual open/closed policy they are following; in a sense wanting to have one's cake and eat it too, regardless of the legality. It's also a sign that Google is eroding the goodwill of their community to the point where members do not trust them to do the right thing.
 
Thanks,
Shane

André Charles Legendre

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 2:41:15 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
Hi Shane

Open Source Initiative consider that to be "open source" a project
cannot be published under NDA. (see below)
http://www.opensource.org/osr

The question is : is Open Source Initiative stupid to ask for this requirement ?
Look at the board members before to say that they are stupid :
http://www.opensource.org/board

Personally I believe that this requirement is normal and problems that
we have now with Android are a good demonstration : the community out
of the NDA is locked and unhappy.

Regards

Andre Charles Legendre

Mark Murphy

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 3:02:15 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
> Open Source Initiative consider that to be "open source" a project
> cannot be published under NDA. (see below)
> http://www.opensource.org/osr

False.

The document says that open *standards* should not have NDAs attached to
them ("To comply with the Open Standards Requirement, an 'open standard'
must satisfy the following criteria...There MUST NOT be any requirement


for execution of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any
other form of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the

standard.").

Android is not positioned as an open standard, AFAIK. If so, then this
document does not apply to this case.

This is not to say that distributing open source releases under an NDA is
a good thing -- it's not, IMHO.

Shane Isbell

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 3:02:44 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:41 AM, André Charles Legendre <andre.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Shane

Open Source Initiative consider that to be "open source" a project
cannot be published under NDA. (see below)
The question is : is Open Source Initiative stupid to ask for this requirement ?
Look at the board members before to say that they are stupid :
http://www.opensource.org/board
The requirement is not stupid, but the way I read it is that the licensor can't require that the licensee include NDAs within distributions of the derivative open-source work, while still calling it open source; it does not preclude the option of the licensee doing so if they want.
 
For example, Google can use ASL 2.0 code, modify and redistribute with an NDA. They may not however, license their own code (or derivatives) as ASL AND attach an additional NDA clause to the the ASL license, saying that anyone modifying the ASL code must also attach the NDA. That would go against open-source requirements.
 
I really don't want to do Google's homework for them, so they are the best to respond.
 
Shane

André Charles Legendre

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 3:32:11 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
It seems that we have not the same way to read this :

# No Agreements: There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution of a


license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form of
paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard.

But it seems that many people have the same question than me (consider
the fact that part of SDK are derivative from GPL projects).

Below a statement from Richard Stallman who details its answer so it
would be easier to read without mistake :

This is the mail archive of the g...@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the
GCC project.
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
GPL and NDA

* To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
* Subject: GPL and NDA
* From: Richard Stallman <rms at gnu dot org>
* Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:07:10 -0600 (MDT)
* Reply-to: rms at gnu dot org

GPL-covered code may not be distributed under an NDA.
To do so is a violation of the GPL.

If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered code that
is copyright FSF, please inform the FSF immediately. If it involves


GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform
that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of
violation of the GPL.

It is possible for a person or company to develop changes to a
GPL-covered program and sign an NDA promising not to release these
changes *to anyone*. This is a different case. As long as these
changes are not distributed at all, a fortiori they are not
distributed in a way that violates the GPL.

However, if and when the changes are distributed to another person or
outside the company, they must be distributed under the terms of the
GPL, not under an NDA.

Joa

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 4:32:52 PM6/30/08
to Android Developers


On Jun 30, 10:35 am, "André Charles Legendre"
<andre.legen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Joa
>
> You seems to forget the main things :
>
> Does Android SDK need to be open source as using a lot of Open Source code ?
>
Dalvik demonstrates that they went to great lenghts to avoid
dependencies on their part, e.g. having to rely on Sun Java. And even
if they were in violation. We'd be buidling on a system that's
compromised even more than it is at this point. Developers don't have
an interest in sinking their platform. But are they crazy enough to
hang in there to get pounded in you know where? At this point... I've
stopped working. Android has been pitched as "open source" all along.
Where is the "dual strategy" coming from all of a sudden? It is
mislieading to announce the release of parts of Android as open source
"in the future" when in reality Google started marching in the
opposite direction. What a shame. But I'm running in circles here...
Let's turn to the inside-trackers for a few thoughts though. Looks
like things for *those* guys might turn out really bad. Imagine: You
won, cashed in $25K, signed the papers and told all your friends and
family. Pride and joy. Now you go and you quit your dayjob, run to the
bank for credit. More money gets thrown at you. Just in time to start
worrying if you're next in line for a rude awakening. Man... the
carriers haven't even gotten involved yet and Google drive a wedge in
the community like that. Uh oh. In the end... some of the inside-
trackers might end up really messed.

Digit

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 5:34:08 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
I'm certainly going to be slapped for talking publicy about all this in this forum, but, as an
Android team member, I really think it's time to correct some misunderstandings before
the wild hyperbole that has been prospering in this thread goes further.

First of all, regarding the alleged GPL violations: I'll remind you that the only components
covered by the GPL that we distributed are: the kernel image and the emulator library.

(no, we never distributed javadoc, please check your zip files before making bold but erroneous
claims)

We distributed updated binaries of these GPL-ed components to the ADC round 1 winners.
Technically , any one of them can ask us for the corresponding sources, and would be free
to distribute them under the GPL publicly. but nobody did that until now, and I doubt that
would be very useful for the following reasons:
  • first of all, you could only use them to try to run the same M3 or M5 system images.

  • second, it's not even guaranteed that the updated emulator and/or kernel images would
    run M3/M5 well. As the guy in charge of the emulator, I certainly don't want to have to
    support that kind of combination.

  • the kernel sources are already available from our git server anyway.
remember that, strictly speaking, the GPL only forces us to distribute the sources to the users that
received the binaries, not to the public at large. you could ask us to be kind by releasing updated
emulator sources, however I'm really certain that there would be nearly-zero practical value to
anyone in the community. What you need is a new SDK, not a very few pieces made out of
GPL sources.

So in short, there hasn't been any GPL violation that I'm aware of, and rest assured that the Android team
has been very cautious about licensing issues from the very start. If we really made a mistake, I think
we'll be more than happy to correct it though.


Now, regarding the NDA. Certain people have made some really wild guesses about it even though
they've never seen it or know what it covers exactly. Please note that nobody from Google or the OHA
ever claimed that the NDA applied to the GPL-ed code. it's here to protect the updated system images
and APIs which are still, at the moment, not open source. why would we have updated our
git server with updated kernel sources otherwise ?


But the root of the problem is certainly not licensing but that there hasn't been a new public SDK release
since M5, while at the same time a small group of people received updated versions privately.

I really don't know precisely why this happened; but I'm sure it has more to do with logistics and reducing
the burden of support while we shift priorities (to shipping real devices) rather than politics or any will of our
part to "hurt the community" (come one guys, we are not that stupid... !)

While others in the team may disagree, I think it was very very unfortunate; some of us are trying to
prepare a new SDK release, but it's a lot harder than I can comment on here, so don't hold your breath
because it might not happen that soon.

And I'd like to add that, as we said, we're still totally committed to release the platform under the
Apache 2.0 license. Many people in the Android team, and at Google in general, are looking forwards
with excitement when this will happen this year.

Finally, I'd like to thank all the people in the community that are currently keeping their cool despite this
uncomfortable situation. We feel your pain, understand it, even though we can only ask you to be patient
at the moment.

Voila, that's all I'm going to say... thanks for your time and take care.

Bruno Sauer

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 6:07:25 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
my two US cents ain't worth much these days but IMO, Shane hit the nail on the head a couple of emails back,

Google is eroding the goodwill of their community

Google is going to do what they want irregardless even if morally André makes the right arguments, especially on how Sergey led the community to believe on YouTube that things were not going to be like this.

What amazes me most is that, despite ongoing pleas and petitions from Plusminus and other outstanding member of this community, no responsible person at Google has stuck their neck out of the door and made a statement.

That is very worrying:  is the leadership lost?

Joa

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 7:54:17 PM6/30/08
to Android Developers
Hi Digit thanks for the update.
Back on topic. No SDK updates in sight unless we are part of the
privileged. How that comes across? Not well obviously, as has been
elaborated.
As long as things play out in Kafkaesque dimensions, and the only way
to get something out is by rattling the cage, the community will
either die, or speculation is going to remain a perpetual problem. You
(and I say you, as the Google team) have *got* to do a better job at
this.

Shane Isbell

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 8:06:45 PM6/30/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Joa <Joachim....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Digit thanks for the update.
Back on topic. No SDK updates in sight unless we are part of the
privileged. How that comes across? Not well obviously, as has been
elaborated.
As long as things play out in Kafkaesque dimensions, and the only way
to get something out is by rattling the cage,
Lol, Google is very much like the Castle and we outsiders are like the lowly land surveyor, K.. I suppose the ADC winners would be Barnabas. Unfortunately rattling the cage didn't work out very well in that story. 
 
Shane

André Charles Legendre

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 1:56:38 AM7/1/08
to android-d...@googlegroups.com
Hi Digit

First of thank's to brake this wall of silence which hurt all of us.
This silence is probably the biggest pain for us.

Why not publish new SDK release ?
Why not publish some news to the community ?

Regards

Andre Legendre

efon...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 2:25:16 PM7/1/08
to Android Developers
Digit,

Thank you for not using the title "Developer Advocate"

On Jun 30, 4:34 pm, Digit <digit.andr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm certainly going to be slapped for talking publicy about all this in this
> forum, but, as an
> Android team member, I really think it's time to correct some
> misunderstandings before
> the wild hyperbole that has been prospering in this thread goes further.
>
> First of all, regarding the alleged GPL violations: I'll remind you that the
> only components
> covered by the GPL that we distributed are: the kernel image and the
> emulator library.
>
> (no, we never distributed javadoc, please check your zip files before making
> bold but erroneous
> claims)
>
> We distributed updated binaries of these GPL-ed components to the ADC round
> 1 winners.
> Technically , any one of them can ask us for the corresponding sources, and
> would be free
> to distribute them under the GPL publicly. but nobody did that until now,
> and I doubt that
> would be very useful for the following reasons:
>
> - first of all, you could only use them to try to run the *same* M3 or M5
> system images.
>
> - second, it's not even guaranteed that the updated emulator and/or
> kernel images would
> run M3/M5 well. As the guy in charge of the emulator, I certainly don't
> want to have to
> support that kind of combination.
>
> - the kernel sources are already available from our git server anyway.
>
> remember that, strictly speaking, the GPL only forces us to distribute the
> sources to the users that
> received the binaries, not to the public at large. you could ask us to be
> kind by releasing updated
> emulator sources, however I'm really certain that there would be nearly-zero
> practical value to
> anyone in the community. What you need is a new SDK, not a very few pieces
> made out of
> GPL sources.
>
> So in short, there hasn't been any GPL violation that I'm aware of, and rest
> assured that the Android team
> has been very cautious about licensing issues from the very start. If we
> really made a mistake, I think
> we'll be more than happy to correct it though.
>
> Now, regarding the NDA. Certain people have made some really wild guesses
> about it even though
> they've never seen it or know what it covers exactly. Please note that *
> nobody* from Google or the OHA
> ever claimed that the NDA applied to the GPL-ed code. it's here to protect
> the updated system images
> and APIs which are still, at the moment, not open source. why would we have
> updated our
> git server with updated kernel sources otherwise ?
>
> But the root of the problem is certainly not licensing but that there hasn't
> been a new public SDK release
> since M5, while at the same time a small group of people received updated
> versions privately.
>
> I really don't know precisely why this happened; but I'm sure it has more to
> do with logistics and reducing
> the burden of support while we shift priorities (to shipping real devices)
> rather than politics or any will of our
> part to "hurt the community" (come one guys, we are *not* that stupid... !)
>
> While others in the team may disagree, I think it was very very unfortunate;
> some of us are trying to
> prepare a new SDK release, but it's a lot harder than I can comment on here,
> so don't hold your breath
> because it might not happen that soon.
>
> And I'd like to add that, as we said, we're still totally committed to
> release the platform under the
> Apache 2.0 license. *Many* people in the Android team, and at Google in
> general, are looking forwards
> with excitement when this will happen this year.
>
> Finally, I'd like to thank all the people in the community that are
> currently keeping their cool despite this
> uncomfortable situation. We feel your pain, understand it, even though we
> can only ask you to be patient
> at the moment.
>
> Voila, that's all I'm going to say... thanks for your time and take care.
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:32 PM, André Charles Legendre <
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages