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 I'm merely pointing out that when Romain gave a link of released GPL distributions, they were all outdated, so I didn't think it was a valid response to Andre.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 On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Shane Isbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Mark Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 > >> >> >> 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. > > > >> >> >> -- >> Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) >> http://commonsware.com >> _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ -- Available Now! >> >> >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
