C&D cyanogen devs comeon, really?

111 views
Skip to first unread message

schwiz

unread,
Sep 24, 2009, 7:03:36 PM9/24/09
to Android Discuss
So everytime I have seen someone ask about apps2sd for android, the
response has been something along the lines of 'well if you don't like
the space on the phone modify it yourself if its that easy' Someone
takes this to heart and does it for free for thousands of users who
are already supporting google and you shut them down? Now we have to
pick between having space for apps on our phone -OR- not having the
marketplace on our phone anymore so it doesn't even matter? I highly
suggest if you are going to C&D cyanogen to give users who have PAID
for a 'powered by google' android device to backup their google apps
that they paid for. We have paid for the software we should be
entitled to use it with any build of android we choose. Otherwise,
you might want to try taking user requests a little more seriously.

Josh Steiner

unread,
Sep 24, 2009, 11:08:20 PM9/24/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
This is one of the stupidest moves I've seen a company do in a while.  First, wait til an organic community developer group forms around your product, wait til they release improved version of your free OS, let them hype it to death for you... then C&D them out of existence until they all go tinker with Maemo or Linmo (or iPhone or Web OS) devices.

It doesn't matter if Google, Inc are legally correct, this is a boneheaded business decision.

-Josh

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 10:16:02 AM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Geeze,

This isn't too complicated.
Just because an organization has open source software doesn't mean
that their software is *ALL* open source or freely redistributable.

Inclusion of the closed source google apps in these hacker roms is
PIRACY, plain and simple, and Google *does* have the right to protect
their property.


The simple solution is to just NOT INCLUDE the google apps for which
the rom maker doesn't have a redistribution license.
Is there any particular reason why these roms MUST contain all those
closed source apps? Nope. If a user really wants them, nothing to stop
them from adding them in. As I understand it, htc's license (in
distributing official ADP1 system images with google apps) allows them
to license those google apps for installation to official ADP1 devices
regardless of the source of the overall system image, so owners of
ADP1 devices can LEGALLY use a mod rom and install the closed-source
google apps.


As for Google's motives here, It doesn't appear to be just the
redistribution of their closed source apps. It appears to be more
specifically related to the distribution of the PRERELEASE DONUT
MARKET APPLICATION.

In other words, if this cyanogen character didn't (a) somehow steal
the prerelease donut market app, and (b) include it with cyanogenmod
roms, it is most likely that Google would have simply IGNORED HIM as
has been their (apparent) policy in the past.

Disconnect

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 10:24:39 AM9/25/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Yes and no - fwiw I got a polite "heads up" way back when I was
distributing hardware-runnable versions of AOSP because of the various
proprietary bins. (No google -apps-, but the horrid mix of google and
HTC bits you need to get it to boot, make calls, etc.)

It isn't (directly) why I stopped, but I was basically told "btw, we
see this and yes it sucks that you can't do dev, but we may have to do
something about it at some future point."

That sort of bullshit is why I stopped taking an active role in
android dev - once the n900 comes out, I'm gonna give maemo another
try. (Remember way back when googs claimed nobody could make an OSS
phone? Before they changed to "well, WE won't make an OSS phone..")

I'm thinking it could be fun to port dalvik to run android apps as
native-ish (wine-style) maemo apps.

coolbho3k

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 9:15:13 AM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Perhaps the issue is with Google's legal/corporate team having
contradicting views with Google's engineering team. I'm sure many
Google employees appreciate Cyanogen's work - BFS was integrated into
the kernel, for example, after Cyanogen implemented it himself.

Phinidy

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 12:42:56 AM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
your absolutely right, Google will give new meaning to "OPEN"
source...
feels good to see the recipe to this wonderful software..... would be
a shame if no one else can enjoy the food ...lol

Giantcandy

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 4:31:01 AM9/25/09
to Android Discuss

you couldn't be more right, this is insane, the easy solution to this
would be to have all the apps on the market, then the CM builds can be
google app free, and we just go and DL them from the market, problem
solved...just add all the google apps to your market google, then no
need for nasty letters for no good reason....your suppose to be the
anti apple that doesn't hide behind the curtain and let's ppl do what
they do best, work as a community to make things better...but this is
not that idea...so yeah, i hope to see all the google apps on the
market so you can still have a biz becuase those 30,000 ppl on CM and
a lot of other on diff roms...they help spread buzz about upcoming
stuff...aka..new market...so, stop...collaborate and listen...to your
user base...

williamthrilliam

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 12:17:20 AM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
This is really just wrong. If you are that concerned about your image
and trade mark, open source the closed bits and let others
redistribute it under another name. There are other ways to go about
this, and this should not have been your first step.

On Sep 24, 10:08 pm, Josh Steiner <vitrio...@gmail.com> wrote:

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 2:52:28 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
They can't open source the market app due to the $$ nature of it. Sure
the transactions could be handled safely by an open source app, but
enforcing that they are installed to app-private cant be done.

On Sep 25, 12:17 am, williamthrilliam <will.e.carl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Josh Steiner

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 3:20:37 PM9/25/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
They don't have to open source it.  All they have to do is extend a "not for profit" right to distribute the binaries, like Adobe does with Acrobat.  If a handset manufacturer wants to distribute the apps, they still have to go through the screening/certification process that Google rightly wants in place, but community moders like Cyanogen would get a free license to distribute, as long as they weren't charging for their mods.

-Josh

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 4:32:28 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Are you certain that Google has the *legal right* to do that? Could
very well be some non-google components in it which come with a
license that google has to bend to.

For that matter, this whole thing could stem from this kind of IP
issue....
Google app contains X corp code under license terms restricting
redistribution and NDA agreement between google and X corp preventing
google from disclosing the nature of the license and the name of X
corp.... have you considered that? The assumption of evil has no
merit. And who knows where in the system the problem exists... might
it be within the payment processing system? Or could it be some
convoluted chunk of code?


On Sep 25, 3:20 pm, Josh Steiner <vitrio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They don't have to open source it.  All they have to do is extend a "not for
> profit" right to distribute the binaries, like Adobe does with Acrobat.  If
> a handset manufacturer wants to distribute the apps, they still have to go
> through the screening/certification process that Google rightly wants in
> place, but community moders like Cyanogen would get a free license to
> distribute, as long as they weren't charging for their mods.
>
> -Josh
>

Josh Steiner

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 9:10:08 PM9/25/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
You are right, we can only really go on assumptions.  They could be bound by some other obligation to not make their binaries freely redistributable, but seeing as how we can neither prove nor disprove that, I'm going to stick with my assumptions and you can stick with yours.

This is evil, there is no other way to look at it.  For over a year now Google have been reaping the positive press of claiming Android to be an Open Source platform, which it is demonstrably not.  If you cannot build the source and run it on any of the hardware that its intended to run on, the platform is not open source.  Android is officially as open source as the iPhone OS, ie, it has major chunks of open source code in it, but the whole is closed. 

Many people have been willing to look the other way, because until last night you could build the AOSP sources, roll it up with some binary blobs and get a running distribution.  It sure felt open source.  This is now dead.

With one single C&D they killed Android as a community open source project.   If they don't realize this, and rectify it quick, kiss the good will good bye.  As I'm sure Google, Inc. is aware, good will is a commodity that can not easily be gained back once lost.

-Josh

Streets Of Boston

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 10:33:04 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
I agree with lbcoder.

This post sheds a little light on it:
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-google-apps-for-android.html

The source is still AOSP. Just leave out the 'offending' apps
(Market, GMail, Maps, etc) and you should be able to mod the source as
much as you want.
> > seriously.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Al Sutton

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 2:20:04 AM9/26/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
One of the reasons we allow the AndAppStore client to be freely distributed is that its' not the distribution that pays for the servers, etc. it's the on-site and in-app advertising, so free distribution is an option. We haven't open sourced the app because it would allow developers to produce an app which uses our services but generates no revenue for us, and hence we'd not cover our running costs.

The decision to relicenses will probably be significantly affected by the business model used to cover the costs of servers and not just by a desire to do so.

Al.
--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the 
company number  6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, 
152-160 City Road, London,  EC1V 2NX, UK. 

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not 
necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's 
subsidiaries.

Hexe

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 7:08:25 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
the decision to stop cyano is the worst decision google can take. Her
own developers cant get android so fast and smooth as the xda-devs can
do - and what did google? They stop it.
Cyanogen is over. Google should give him a crontract that he can do
his mod but he have to take the original apks without change it (maps,
mail and so on) - but no, why should google be so clever.
My privat decision is to let my old G1 die and that will be my last
android platform.

Google steal all the news (much of them), steal boosk (scanning
without permissions) and so on and so on but now they have her pants
full of something because there is a developer and he is so much
better as her own developers - for free. Google, think about what you
will be.

Rob

unread,
Sep 27, 2009, 2:02:05 AM9/27/09
to Android Discuss
I see the money aspect of it as you need to cover costs, but when the
ROM does not deter $ from Google or generate $ for the person making
it then I see no right to fight this.
Google will still make its money on browsing clicks.
The Gmail app is just a widget like interface in a way. I get no adds
through it.
It seems like a dumb move to tell the whole world, "Hey we made this
completely open source software," then turn around threaten someone
who has made your "open source" a bit more efficient.
Lets be honest.
The hardware SUCKS on these phone. They are running on limited RAM and
2 yr old cpus.
Their design....well the Cliq n Hero seem to be best, but myTouch and
G1 are not pretty.
And up to now, most if not all lag.
The only reason people have and will shell out $200+ for these phones
is on the promise that it is open sourced.
The promise that you as the buyer of hardware and software could do
what you will and make the phone operate the way you want.
Is Cyanogen's ROM cutting into your profits?
If it is...please state how. (Facts and figures) Since it seems the
money will be made in the clicks and market.
Secondly, not every phone can use Android. Since the drivers are
limited, and that's where you guys come in.
People shell out $200+ to buy your software, "with Google."
Manufacturers and Providers have seen the impact of your software and
will pay manufacturers to implement your software on phones and your
networks.
The thing is, if Cyanogen can produce a better ROM than you guys why
not offer him a job?
His ROM allows you to do two things you guys can't seem to make
happen.
1. Make the system more responsive and lag free.
2. One is able to store programs in an SD card and not be limited BY
THE 1980's 188mb (after ROM) drive space.
Which by the way, MS Mobile 6.0 can let the user do.

I'm a Google fan and have written articles giving props to Docs and
Google Voice, but this cease notice is really dumb and in a way going
against the rebel reputation Google has carved for itself.

Joe Greene

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 11:04:01 AM9/26/09
to Android Discuss
This user is very, very correct, everyone I know with an Android
device is planning to get rid of it asap and get an iPhone or WinMo
phone because of this, this isn't Open Source google, this is "It's
open.. as long as it suits our profit margins", you're turning into
Apple and I can guarantee I'll be telling each and every person I know
how hypocritical you are about being the good company who isn't evil,
unlike MS, at least they let us put custom roms on phones with WinMo.

W

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 3:17:40 AM9/26/09
to Android Discuss
Well said. This is firing a bullet right into your own toes. No one
is disputing Google's legal right to do this. It's about how
fundamentally stupid it is to piss off your most ardent and
technically savvy supporters. Unless Google reverses course here, the
next few plays are pretty straightforward-- (1) cyanogen and other
developers move to another platform (sucking air, advocacy, and
momentum from Android's adoption) or (2) a serious effort gets
underway to replace the proprietary .apks/apis with true open-source
replacements-- a map app that uses openstreetmap (with turn-by-turn),
a better IMAP client for gmail, an alternative market app like
andappstore, etc. Eventually the IP-unencumbered alternatives will be
as good or better than Google's offerings, and what will Google have
gained? This is how it's worked with open-source since the beginning
of time.

It is strategically unwise for Google to publicly advocate FOSS
development, build an entire platform on FOSS codebase, promote FOSS
philosophy to win market share and mindshare, then take a massive dump
all over their burgeoning development community and fan base. (and if
you don't think that's what's happened, read the comments on xda-
developers, android blogs, or most of the Google apps in the Market)

W

Vaneshi

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 2:24:10 AM9/26/09
to Android Discuss
Unfortunately, Market app is closed source and can't be distributed.
Most of the core google apps that ship on a stock G1 or part of 3rd
party roms aren't on the market. Basically you could compile the rom
image, ship the rom image, install the rom image and be left with a
very basic, but working, phone. No Gmail, no Search, no apps from
the market, no market itself in fact and no Gmaps either. They're not
just apk files either from what I hear, they're quite involved little
beasties to compile and need to be thunked in to a rom to fire up.

Yes, Cynogen could keep releasing without the Google apps as could
anyone else, but honestly, would anyone want to use those ROM's and
not be able to have the apps and functionality they got the phone for
in the first place? Some yes. But most probably not and yeah, I'm in
the no group.

Google just obliterated the current rom scene.

PaulR

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 10:25:30 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
No good can come from this. Was it really necessary to go to a C&D
letter as a first move? I thought it was Apple that treated its users
with contempt and didn't communicate with them. Talk to the guy,
hammer out some sort of agreement that would allow him to distribute
the apps or at worst keep doing what he is but with a caveat against
including the apps and encouraging users to download them from the
Market.

I can't fully see Google's point of view on this. I can appreciate
they want to protect their property and rights but as far as I'm
aware, no current developer of custom ROMs attempts to charge for
their work nor do they try to claim the apps as their work. They're
included because it's an expected part of the Android experience and
in some cases (Google Mail, YouTube) aren't available as a download
via the Market.

If it's purely these apps then say so. I dare say that many people
would be unhappy but if they can obtain them legally from Google it's
just a slight inconvenience rather than a road block. If it's a lot
of background stuff too such as the ability to sign in to sync with
Google services and the Market app itself then it's effectively
killing the modding scene and all the work it's done.

I really, really hope it isn't that and is about the main apps because
I doubt I'm the only one that would seriously consider dropping
Android as soon as my contract ends. I got my G1 for the integration
with online stuff, the ability to customise and mod it but I couldn't
do it without the help of the many developers. I don't care how hard
it is or what needs to be done, Google you need to find a way to
resolve this that won't kill the modding scene and seriously tarnish
your reputation. Do no harm? This is a case of do MOST harm because
it will kill a huge portion of the hard work done for free to help
improve Android by enthusiast developers.

Frank

unread,
Sep 25, 2009, 11:32:30 PM9/25/09
to Android Discuss
Its useless to build a cool house (android) and give permission for
others to freely copy and improve the house and give it to others, but
then say "you can't give away the furnace (gmail), plumbing (market),
or electric system (gmaps) with this house because its our personal
cool furnace, plumbing, and electric, or we'll stomp on you".

Sure the "community" could come up with replacements for Gmail,
Market, and GMaps, but I bet the Google lawyers would figure out how
to stomp on those as well, probably from an intellectual property,
look-and-feel, or other angle.

You know, if its "open source" then it should all be open source.

I am extremely disappointed with Google's handling of this. Of course
I agree with them that someone not Google shouldn't be able to give
away those apps for free, but who's paying for them here? Aren't they
already distributed with android? How can something "open" contain
"proprietary" stuff that can't be distributed? Then the whole thing
isn't open, period. If one thing has this legal anchor, the whole
thing does.

Then Google should stop pimping it as "open", "freely distributed",
etc. Even if they're not actually saying that, that's sure the
perception "out there", and perception is fact. Google got all the
good PR from being behind android, making it sound like a fresh new
thing that's better than the iPod OS or Windows cause "anyone can do
anything with android, look how cool Google is".

What cracks me up is that from 10000 feet up the solution to this
whole thing seems so damn simple. Make GMail, GMaps, an upgraded
Market (sorry the one that's part of the original distro and up to
4.0.4 of CyanogenMod is a sad excuse of an app for even an entry level
coder, much sadder for a giant "innovator" such as Google. My 11 year
old daughter even laughs at it.), and whatever else app that Google
has its corporate panties in such a bunch about such a fit about, and
make them separately installable from the "open source" part of
android. Then its up to ROM devs such as Cyanogen to make sure their
ROM can run the latest version of these apps, and Google can keep
their precious proprietary apps tightly hidden away in their ivory
towers, and the community can modify the operating system itself to
make it actually good above and beyond the version that Google
released.

Shoot, me myself only have use for Google Maps and the Market (and
only for those apps that I can only get via the market, other than
that I stay away from that "thing"), so Cyanogen and those that think
outside of the Google box, please continue to give me a highly
optimized, fast, capable, root-accessible, save-apps-to-SD-built-in,
tetherable, and most of all, actually-usable-above-and-beyond-the-base-
android-that-almost-made-me-punt-and-go-iPhone-that-came-with-my-G1.

That's open source. Use the brains, ingenuity, and skills of the
community to make what you did better.

Don't do this stupid.

All I know is if I have to go back to my old ROM I'll drop android
cause in its former guise it's not a viable OS for anything remotely
device-challenging.

Cap'n'Crunk

unread,
Sep 26, 2009, 6:52:16 PM9/26/09
to Android Discuss
> PIRACY, plain and simple, and Google *does* have the right to protect
> their property.

Since everyone using cyanogenmod has legally obtained an android
phone, I don't see how google loses out letting the binaries be
included. They already got the money for them. However they lose out
on customers if they keep at this. Seems pretty backwards to me.

> The simple solution is to just NOT INCLUDE the google apps for which
> the rom maker doesn't have a redistribution license.
> Is there any particular reason why these roms MUST contain all those
> closed source apps? Nope.

Actually yeah, the phone can't even boot without proprietary code.

> As for Google's motives here, It doesn't appear to be just the
> redistribution of their closed source apps.

Well, that's what the official statement google released says the
motive is.. and the reason why was 'it hurts us,' a re-statement of
the position, not an explanation. Then they had the nerve to say 'i
hope this clears things up' which it of course doesn't. So far it
appears they're doing it because they can.

> It appears to be more
> specifically related to the distribution of the PRERELEASE DONUT
> MARKET APPLICATION.

Which again, will be an update provided to people who've already paid
for an android phone. Who loses out?

> roms, it is most likely that Google would have simply IGNORED HIM as
> has been their (apparent) policy in the past.

Actually this was in the works at google even before the donut market
app was used.

Disconnect

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 3:47:00 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Cap'n'Crunk <capn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> PIRACY, plain and simple, and Google *does* have the right to protect
>> their property.
>
> Since everyone using cyanogenmod has legally obtained an android
> phone, I don't see how google loses out letting the binaries be
> included. They already got the money for them. However they lose out
> on customers if they keep at this. Seems pretty backwards to me.
>

Er, you can prove that nobody bought a non-google-experience htc magic
and installed cyanongen onto it..?

Right.

>> The simple solution is to just NOT INCLUDE the google apps for which
>> the rom maker doesn't have a redistribution license.
>> Is there any particular reason why these roms MUST contain all those
>> closed source apps? Nope.
>
> Actually yeah, the phone can't even boot without proprietary code.

The bad news is, thats htc's code and they aren't part of all this
work to make it better.

>
>> As for Google's motives here, It doesn't appear to be just the
>> redistribution of their closed source apps.
>
> Well, that's what the official statement google released says the
> motive is.. and the reason why was 'it hurts us,' a re-statement of
> the position, not an explanation. Then they had the nerve to say 'i
> hope this clears things up' which it of course doesn't. So far it
> appears they're doing it because they can.
>

They were pretty clear, if a little wordy and soft. (Dianne later said
much more about it.) They need "incentive" to get carriers to pay for
the google experience. That incentive is android market. (Which should
correspondingly be called "Google market" or "Google Android market"
.. but meh.)

Lets compare the stock adp1 image with iphone + free google apps:
- gmail, with push. (oops, iphone/bb/etc can do multiple accounts.
Advantage: iphone)
- android market (well, each vendor has 1 or more markets these days.
call it even, for this comparison)
- google maps with gps (identical, slight advnatage android due to mapview)
- google calander integration (identical)
- google talk (identical except you have to run it on android
periodically to fix market bugs)

Did I miss anything? The "google platform" at its maximum google-ness
does less than the 3rd party devices with freely-downloadable apps.
(Even most j2me phones!) They need all the help they can get to force
the device vendors to build devices.

>> It appears to be more
>> specifically related to the distribution of the PRERELEASE DONUT
>> MARKET APPLICATION.
>
> Which again, will be an update provided to people who've already paid
> for an android phone. Who loses out?

Straw, meet camel. And that -particular- client will not be an update.
Nor is it released. ("Someday" your daughter will be an adult in
college. That doesn't mean you want her chugging beer at 6 years old.)

>> roms, it is most likely that Google would have simply IGNORED HIM as
>> has been their (apparent) policy in the past.
>
> Actually this was in the works at google even before the donut market
> app was used.

Source?

Felipemnoa

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 4:11:04 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
So you think Apple is better?
On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Joe Greene <joe...@gmail.com> wrote:


This user is very, very correct, everyone I know with an Android
device is planning to get rid of it asap and get an iPhone or WinMo
phone because of this, this isn't Open Source google, this is "It's
open.. as long as it suits our profit margins", you're turning into
Apple and I can guarantee I'll be telling each and every person I know
how hypocritical you are about being the good company who isn't evil,
unlike MS, at least they let us put custom roms on phones withPeri Gilpin WinMo.

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 5:05:52 PM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
Do you even know what a C&D is? It is a letter that google's lawyers
wrote to cyanogen asking him politely to stop distributing their
closed source apps. It is not a court order! It is just a letter
asking for compliance. They have NOT taken legal action against
anyone.

How would YOU start if not by writing a letter to ask? Telepathy?

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 5:08:41 PM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
They *DIDN'T* stop him!!!!

He is continuing, ALMOST business as usual.
New versions of cyanogenmod will NOT include closed source google
apps.
The user will provide them as part of THEIR BACKUP. *NO REAL
DIFFERENCE*

The issue is in distribution, not in use of.

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 5:11:12 PM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
I really wish that people would read and understand before they made
themselves sound stupid.

AOSP *IS* open.
Google closed apps are NOT AOSP!
AOSP does NOT REQUIRE google closed apps.
The user CAN STILL USE google closed apps with a custom build.
ROMDEVS can NOT distribute google closed apps.
The user can use THEIR ORIGINAL COPY.
NO DIFFERENCE.
READ THE LICENSE.
Dont be retarded.

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 5:12:33 PM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
This is nothing more than a minor change in procedure. The end results
are no difference EXCEPT that the lawyers will be happy.

Read.
Think.

The only reason people are "pissed off" is that they are too dumb to
read and understand what is going on.

Felipemnoa

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 6:06:08 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Or because they love the drama of hating someone.

Rob

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 6:40:47 PM9/28/09
to Android Discuss
It's not really that. Is that they provide android and the "with
Google" experience yet they do not differentiate between both. Then a
year later they provide the most recognized developer with a C&D
letter.
And who is to say this will stop?

Disconnect

unread,
Sep 28, 2009, 7:47:56 PM9/28/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Er, i suspect google defending themselves from leaks and piracy won't
stop. Why would it?

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 9:35:59 AM9/29/09
to Android Discuss
That is only the case if you *DON'T READ*.

Android is android -- see OHA, AOSP.
"With Google" means "With Google" -- see Google.

When you sync with AOSP repo, the closed source "with google" stuff is
NOT THERE.

The licenses are ALL included IN YOUR PHONE. Settings/About/Licenses.
Read them. Didn't know they were there? Your own fault for not
looking!

Rob

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 10:20:20 AM9/29/09
to Android Discuss
Why did the take a yr to do this?
Why not come off the bat and mention it?
A lot of fine print is meant to drag and confuse people.
DId you read the whole fine print in your credit card, cable tv,
android phone, pc/mac OS?

Andrew Hays

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 10:28:58 AM9/29/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
Rob, I read the fine print on practically everything I accept, especially if I am paying a hefty amount of money for it.
------------------
http://andrewhays.net
http://ashays.livejournal.com

Sean Hodges

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 10:51:34 AM9/29/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Rob <boylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A lot of fine print is meant to drag and confuse people.
> DId you read the whole fine print in your credit card, cable tv,
> android phone, pc/mac OS?

Are we still talking about Android here, or have we moved onto the
causes of the global recession?

Rob

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 3:47:36 PM9/29/09
to Android Discuss
LOL...Now we are discussing both it seems.


On Sep 29, 10:51 am, Sean Hodges <seanhodge...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Teal

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 4:33:16 PM9/29/09
to Android Discuss
Telepathy? Why yes, in fact. Writing is so 2009.
> > improve Android by enthusiast developers.- Hide quoted text -

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 9:33:26 AM9/30/09
to Android Discuss
Just because you don't read it doesn't mean it isn't binding.
And yes, I always read it. And understand it.
Why a year?
How do you know it was a year?
Maybe they C&D's Jesusfreke as well. Ever wonder WHY he quit?
Maybe others haven't been around long enough to bother with. It TAKES
TIME for the legal machinery to crank.
Maybe it was all OK until the new and at-the-time-unreleased market
app (it has now been released since 1.6 is now officially out on real
devices - ADP1) got into it.

Rob

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 12:31:49 PM9/30/09
to Android Discuss
It doesn't take a year to send a C&D letter. As soon as the first ROM
was made by any developer Google had enough evidence to send a C&D
letter.
Google is not a small company. They have the money and lawyers to have
dealt with this as soon as someone used one of their owned apps.
I think they just waited to see how big this thing got.
As far as how do I know it's been a yr?
Well when did developers start making roms?
When did the G1 come out?
About a yr ago.

Shane Isbell

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 12:58:19 PM9/30/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
It's a matter of what Google considers the damage is. In the beginning the damages were minimal and not worthy of action. The mistake Google made was one of communication. They should have been more upfront with the community about what they considered off-limits for distribution, rather than waiting for perceived damages of X before responding. Google doesn't have much of a history with open-source communities and will have to learn how to coordinate legal and community aspects (if they hope to maintain a healthy community).
--
Shane Isbell (Co-founder of SlideME - The Original Market for Android)
http://twitter.com/sisbell
http://twitter.com/slideme

lbcoder

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 1:43:49 PM9/30/09
to Android Discuss
This isn't about how long android has been around. It is about how
long CYANOGEN has been around. MUCH LESS than a year.

And again I ask... HOW DO YOU KNOW that no other rom developer
received a C&D? The answer is that YOU DON'T! In fact, go back and
read the FOURTH POST in THIS THREAD... hmm... is that Disconnect
claiming to have been C&D'd by google "way back"? Why yes, IT IS.

Disconnect

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 2:38:42 PM9/30/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
To clarify, I claimed that I got a quiet warning that this was bad and
might get escalated. (And that was related to HTC's bins, not google
stuff. I got a slightly less quiet warning that I shouldn't be
throwing google's bins in it - since it wasn't really my goal anyway,
I didn't..)

Shane Isbell

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 2:43:01 PM9/30/09
to android...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Disconnect <dc.dis...@gmail.com> wrote:

To clarify, I claimed that I got a quiet warning that this was bad and
might get escalated. (And that was related to HTC's bins, not google
stuff. I got a slightly less quiet warning that I shouldn't be
throwing google's bins in it - since it wasn't really my goal anyway,
I didn't..)
Why didn't Google just make the information public and clear?

Eric F

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 6:06:37 PM9/30/09
to Android Discuss
Isn't that what the EULA and Copyright do exactly? Use legal language
so that there can be absolutely no doubt. Just because people ignore
that stuff doesn't make it go away. It's still there, and it is still
Google's official policy. A C&D is not legal action, the entire thing
is clear from the copyrights and license agreements. The only tragedy
here is that Google hasn't structured Android in any way to be
friendly to outside enthusiasts and hackers.

-E

On Sep 30, 11:43 am, Shane Isbell <shane.isb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Rob

unread,
Oct 1, 2009, 10:48:38 AM10/1/09
to Android Discuss
Any developer would have said something.
If I got a letter I would have come to the Android community and said
the same thing.
As far as Google waiting to see if the developer got big. They knew
being "open sourced" that people would have renditions of Android.
They could have nipped this in the butt early.
Its something they should have said from the get go.
Secondly, developers get the code before everyone does. Look at donut
and how it was out to developers and tester before it came out.
Cyanogen might have gone online this year, but Android code was out
way before that.
As far as playing the waiting game?
Come on.
Google has always come off as a str8 forward company.
There something going on here.

lbcoder

unread,
Oct 1, 2009, 3:03:29 PM10/1/09
to Android Discuss
You would?

I wouldn't. Not for fear, but for WHY?
Others wouldn't for fear... i.e. just disappear and maybe they won't
find you.

Rob

unread,
Oct 1, 2009, 4:16:27 PM10/1/09
to Android Discuss
IF you got a C&D letter they know where to find out. As a developer
you are not doing something illegal until someone tells you you are.

lbcoder

unread,
Oct 2, 2009, 9:15:33 AM10/2/09
to Android Discuss
No on both counts.
Just because someone can get a message to you doesn't mean that they
know where to find you, simply that they know where you might look for
the message.

As for doing something illegal... ABSOLUTELY it IS illegal, regardless
of someone calling you out on it! Developers are NOT ABOVE THE LAW and
regardless of the popular idea that something isn't illegal unless you
get caught, doing something against the law (I think this falls under
DMCA) is against the law REGARDLESS of whether or not you get caught.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages