I thought I'd just comment here. I understand everyones point of view and I won't take sides, but I think it's not really necessary to act childish. It won't solve anything, it's counter-productive, and you won't prove your point very well by doing that.
On Apr 7, 4:30 pm, "Stone Mirror" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/4/7 Dan Morrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On this forum, please avoid quoting people (including me) out of context > > for your own agenda. I said quite clearly that Sanjay Jha does not speak > > for Google, and that his comments *pertaining to Google's motivations* are > > his own opinion. He may or may not have been speaking for his own company, > > I don't know. > > Dan, where have I quoted anyone "out of context"? You really need to avoid > falling back on cheap tactics like this, and like your previous > name-calling, when you don't have anything substantive to say in response. > The story I cited is available for anyone to > read<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/03/android_qualcomm/>; > they can draw their own conclusions about it. I didn't leave a bit of > "context" out, and I'd love to see you demonstrate otherwise. > > If you're going to accuse me of quoting out of context, however, I think > it's incumbent on you to *provide *the context you feel I've left out. Or > you could always apologize to me. Again. > > > I'm not going to address your conspiracy theory about the Alliance, > > because it's just silly. > > Well, maybe you can explain to me why there seems to be no particular > evidence of an actual "Open Handset Alliance" beyond the initial > announcement of its existence. Am I incorrect about the license agreement on > the SDK...? Or the ownership of the domain...? Or the copyright notices...? > > What conclusion do you *want *me to draw, Dan? > > Does the Open Handset Alliance have offices? Or a board of directors? Who > runs it? Where's it located? I'd be very interested to hear I'm mistaken > about any of this, but I don't think I am. > > The Linux Foundation has offices, officers and a board of directors. As does > the Linux Phone Standards Forum. As does the LiMo Foundation. As does the > Open Media Now! Foundation. As does the GNOME Foundation. I could go on > citing examples, but you get the point. > > What's the governance model of the Open Handset Alliance? I'd be all kinds > of interested in hearing the details.... > > Or you could always just call me a "troll" again, instead, I suppose. > > 2008/4/7 Stone Mirror <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:18 AM, ian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Cary Harper wrote: > > > > > We applied several months ago and never heard back. I hope you have > > > > better > > > > > luck than we did. > > > > > I've emailed a half dozen times now and have never had any kind of > > > > response. We supply semiconductor IP that's used in lots of TI, Intel, > > > > etc. devices so you'd have thought the OHA would welcome us with open > > > > arms rather than the cold shoulder. > > > > > If anyone knows of any other email contacts for the OHA or Google > > > > people involved with Android, then please let me know. > > > > There's little evidence, beyond the initial press release from last > > > year, that the "Open Handset Alliance" even *exists.* > > > > The license agreement for the SDK isn't between you and the OHA, it's > > > between you and Google. The domain "openhandsetalliance.org" isn't owned > > > by the Open Handset Alliance, it's owned by Google. None of the code > > > that's > > > been released so far, what little there is, contains an "Open Handset > > > Alliance" copyright; it's all been copyrighted by Google. > > > > I commented a day or two ago on the story in The Register where Sanjay > > > Jha, COO of Qualcomm's chipset division, was quoted as saying that it was > > > Google's goal to create fragmentation by introducing Android to ensure > > > that > > > only web-based applications (which Google specializes in, not mobile > > > device > > > operating systems) would be able to gain any sort of foothold in the > > > global > > > market. > > > > Dan Morill very quickly informed us that Mr. Jha "doesn't work for > > > *Google", > > > *and that his statement should therefore be treated as uninformed > > > personal opinion. Seems odd to me, given that Qualcomm is certainly a > > > member > > > of the "Open Handset Alliance"; you think they'd be in a better position > > > to > > > know what the motivation behind Android was. Dan makes it sound as though > > > no > > > one outside of Google has anything to say regarding Android. > > > > Steve Ballmer said, early on, that Android was "just a press release". > > > Clearly there's a bit more to it than that, but I'm coming to believe that > > > the *Open Handset Alliance *may be "just a press release". > > > > -- > > > 鏡石 > > -- > 鏡石 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
