Its apache-licensed.  Just pretend that the upstream is 'equal' and they
created a closed-source fork of it. (Since, realistically, thats what
happened with the dream product tree. Compounded when they merged it to
their p4/cupcake instead of the old master, basically making it forever
unreachable.)

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> But  a group of OHA members made the first deployment where a number of
> apps aren't equal (e.g. Market using locked down APIs, 3rd party
> diallers being unable to call emergency services, etc.).
>
> So if the OHAs own members aren't sticking to that idea, why are the OHA
> claiming it's one of features of an Android system?
>
> Al.
>
> Muthu Ramadoss wrote:
> > "All Applications are created Equal"
> >
> > holds true for all applications created on top of Application Framework.
> >
> > It does not mean that the applications created will be open or free!
> >
> > take care,
> > Muthu Ramadoss.
> >
> > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914
> > http://mobeegal.in - mobile search. redefined.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, aayush <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     The adage that all applications are created equal cannot hold true in
> >     a real commercial rollout by a carrier.
> >
> >     Carriers would want to achieve service differentiation and a
> >     competitive edge over their peers. So they would always want to lock
> >     down some apps to provide them to only their customers.
> >     If all applications would be equal, what value proposition will they
> >     show to their customers ?
> >
> >     So i think, that this statement of application equality does not hold
> >     good....no matter how good the intentions may be..the carriers wont
> >     tolerate it !
> >
> >     Aayush
> >
> >     Muthu Ramadoss wrote:
> >     > I guess "All applications are created equal" will hold true when
> >     you roll
> >     > out your own custom Android implementation. If we consider the G1
> >     > implementation of Android, of course the Carrier is going to
> >     lock down a lot
> >     > of Apps which the Carrier believes is important enough to be
> >     locked down for
> >     > various reasons.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > take care,
> >     > Muthu Ramadoss.
> >     >
> >     > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914
> >     > http://androidrocks.googlecode.com - Android Tutorial.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Al Sutton <[email protected]
> >     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > >
> >     > > Debate on the policy is another (probably lengthy) discussion,
> >     the fact
> >     > > is that the policy exists and because of that all apps are not
> >     equal as
> >     > > the OHA site claim that "All applications are created equal"
> >     doesn't
> >     > > hold up.
> >     > >
> >     > > Al.
> >     > >
> >     > > Shane Isbell wrote:
> >     > > >
> >     > > >
> >     > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Al Sutton
> >     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >     > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
> >     wrote:
> >     > > >
> >     > > >
> >     > > >     They would need stretch that somewhat and define the
> dialler
> >     > > >     application
> >     > > >     as non-core for that to work in relation to the block on
> >     third party
> >     > > >     diallers calling emergency services.
> >     > > >
> >     > > > This is one area I agree with Google on. If there is a
> >     hostile app,
> >     > > > dialing out false emergency requests, clogging the system,
> >     people
> >     > > > could die. Of course, Google deserves all the other crap you
> >     give
> >     > > > them, so keep swinging. Maybe some candy will fall out.
> >     > > >
> >     > > > Shane
> >     > > >
> >     > > >
> >     > > > >
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > > --
> >     > > ======
> >     > > 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.
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > > >
> >     > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
>
>
> --
> ======
> 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.
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to