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 < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
