Google has their own internal repo which they haven't synced it up with the public repo. Its all a bit confusing now since both master and the cupcake branch seems to be broken now.
take care, Muthu Ramadoss. http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914 http://androidrocks.googlecode.com On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
