Everyone who is insisting that its just "oh no, don't distribute gmail".. I challenge you to try AOSP. It'll take some time, but grab the source and build it. Without proprietary bins. (No, seriously. Don't copy a bunch of crap off the old image, don't include any of the proprietary bins that -you are not allowed to redistribute-.)
It won't boot. If you manage to get past that, it won't make noise. LED doesn't work. No way to talk to the cell modem (so no cell services, at all.) Good news, the wifi will probably work. But even if you include the (proprietary!) RIL, it won't make or break calls (oops, setting the initial setup/provisioning flag is "proprietary".) Seriously, this isn't a case of "oh, just stop distributing gmail". This is - as ryebrye said in JBQ's thread - a case of "AOSP doesn't work AT ALL without tons of proprietary crap". If we are going to have to recreate all that, I -really- suggest doing it with someone else's services. Why give them the added business? (Alternately, release the OSS replacements under a more restrictive license - GPL is perfectly android-compatible, except they can't take it inside the wall and profit from it at the expense of the community.) On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is everyone forgetting there are OEMs who are already shipping devices > without the Google software (e.g. vobis.ru, Archos)? > > If their Googles work then Google has the right to say who can > redistribute them, that's the basics of the laws of copyright as has > been established for a century or two. > > You may not agree with it, you may not like how it stands, but that is > a rule thats' part of the society we live in. > > Al. > > -- > > * Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ * > > ====== > 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. > > On 26 Sep 2009, at 04:05, Streets Of Boston wrote: > >> >> You're right. >> >> I hope Google won't just send this C&D and then go 'you figure it out >> and if you can't, screw you'. >> I hope that Google is cooperative in getting around this issue. >> >> If not, the backlash will be big (it is already getting a little out- >> of-hand). >> >> On Sep 25, 10:56 pm, schwiz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Lets hope that is the case, although its still unclear at this point. >>> But on a side note, with developers already having a horrible time >>> making a living off of the googl.., i mean- android market How well >>> is >>> it going to blow over when they kick 30,000 enthusiasts out of the >>> marketplace? The users who actually have space on their phone to >>> install more than 20 apps? >>> >>> On Sep 25, 9:39 pm, Streets Of Boston <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> don't think it's a load of crap. >>> >>>> You can't modify the Market app to allow for download to the sdcard. >>>> But you can create your own market, ala SlideMe, to do what you >>>> want, >>>> i.e. download apks to the sdcard. >>> >>>> But what has this to do with distributing software that is not yours >>>> or that is not opensource? Cyanogen did that (not with bad >>>> intention, >>>> i'm sure of that) and was noticed a C&D by Google. >>> >>>> I do hope, though, that the 'offending' binaries are not an integral >>>> part of Android and that leaving it out would not entirely cripple >>>> it. >>>> If that's the case, I have all confidence that Cyanogen will be up >>>> and >>>> running soon again, with their mods but without the proprietary >>>> (google) apps. >>> >>>> On Sep 25, 8:42 pm, schwiz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sep 25, 8:42 pm, schwiz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> Thats an interesting blog post by the devs, but I frankly think >>>>> its a >>>>> load of crap. I've seen devs post here on the forums on more >>>>> than one >>>>> occation to customer requests of apps2sd as being 'do it yourself >>>>> its >>>>> not a priority' -paraphrased However they failed to mention that >>>>> doing it yourself was violating the TOS for the software that your >>>>> phone needs to function like it should. Am I missing something >>>>> here? >>> >>>>> On Sep 25, 7:16 pm, Streets Of Boston <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Some more info here, from Google:http://android- >>>>>> developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-google-apps-fo... >>> >>>>>> "...we've been seeing some really cool and impressive things, >>>>>> such as >>>>>> the custom Android builds that are popular with many >>>>>> enthusiasts..." >>> >>>>>> "...we developed Android apps for many of our services like >>>>>> YouTube, >>>>>> Gmail, Google Voice, and so on. These apps are **Google's way of >>>>>> benefiting from Android*** in the same way that any other >>>>>> developer >>>>>> can, but the apps are not part of the Android platform itself. >>>>>> We make >>>>>> some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered >>>>>> device >>>>>> via Android Market, and others are ***pre-installed on some phones >>>>>> through business deals***. Either way, ***these apps aren't open >>>>>> source***, and that's why they aren't included in the Android >>>>>> source >>>>>> code repository. Unauthorized distribution of this software >>>>>> harms us >>>>>> just like it would any other business, even if it's done with >>>>>> the best >>>>>> of intentions..." >>> >>>>>> "...We always love seeing novel uses of Android, including custom >>>>>> Android builds from developers who see a need..." >>> >>>>>> Cyanogen was giving away non-opensource applications that generate >>>>>> some revenue for (benifits) Google. That they want to nip this >>>>>> in the >>>>>> bud (as soon as possible) is understandable. >>> >>>>>> But Google doesn't want to shut down Cyanogen, and others like >>>>>> them, >>>>>> all together. Google actually like to see these kinds of >>>>>> activities. >>> >>>>>> At least, that's what i understand from this blog-post. >>> >>>>>> On Sep 25, 10:57 am, PhoenixAG <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Google, >>> >>>>>>> We love you as a company and love the Android platform. It is >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> made better when it is enhanced by people like Cyanogen who use >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> open nature of the platform to further it and attracts many more >>>>>>> people to it, as a result. >>> >>>>>>> I am one of the people who was attracted towards Android not >>>>>>> for the >>>>>>> official rom, but because of the open nature of Android and >>>>>>> that I >>>>>>> could use a custom rom on it. >>> >>>>>>> Someone who has put in so much hard work on the platform should >>>>>>> not be >>>>>>> told to cease and desist, but commended and encouraged to >>>>>>> continue to >>>>>>> work better. >>> >>>>>>> Don't become Apple! >>> >>>>>>> The 30,000 users of CyanogenMod and many more Android users >>>>>>> will thank >>>>>>> you for it. >>> >>>>>>> Remember, "Don't be Evil!"- Hide quoted text - >>> >>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
