To clarify, I claimed that I got a quiet warning that this was bad and might get escalated. (And that was related to HTC's bins, not google stuff. I got a slightly less quiet warning that I shouldn't be throwing google's bins in it - since it wasn't really my goal anyway, I didn't..)
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM, lbcoder <[email protected]> wrote: > > This isn't about how long android has been around. It is about how > long CYANOGEN has been around. MUCH LESS than a year. > > And again I ask... HOW DO YOU KNOW that no other rom developer > received a C&D? The answer is that YOU DON'T! In fact, go back and > read the FOURTH POST in THIS THREAD... hmm... is that Disconnect > claiming to have been C&D'd by google "way back"? Why yes, IT IS. > > On Sep 30, 12:31 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: >> It doesn't take a year to send a C&D letter. As soon as the first ROM >> was made by any developer Google had enough evidence to send a C&D >> letter. >> Google is not a small company. They have the money and lawyers to have >> dealt with this as soon as someone used one of their owned apps. >> I think they just waited to see how big this thing got. >> As far as how do I know it's been a yr? >> Well when did developers start making roms? >> When did the G1 come out? >> About a yr ago. >> >> On Sep 30, 9:33 am, lbcoder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Just because you don't read it doesn't mean it isn't binding. >> > And yes, I always read it. And understand it. >> > Why a year? >> > How do you know it was a year? >> > Maybe they C&D's Jesusfreke as well. Ever wonder WHY he quit? >> > Maybe others haven't been around long enough to bother with. It TAKES >> > TIME for the legal machinery to crank. >> > Maybe it was all OK until the new and at-the-time-unreleased market >> > app (it has now been released since 1.6 is now officially out on real >> > devices - ADP1) got into it. >> >> > On Sep 29, 10:20 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > Why did the take a yr to do this? >> > > Why not come off the bat and mention it? >> > > A lot of fine print is meant to drag and confuse people. >> > > DId you read the whole fine print in your credit card, cable tv, >> > > android phone, pc/mac OS? >> >> > > On Sep 29, 9:35 am, lbcoder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > That is only the case if you *DON'T READ*. >> >> > > > Android is android -- see OHA, AOSP. >> > > > "With Google" means "With Google" -- see Google. >> >> > > > When you sync with AOSP repo, the closed source "with google" stuff is >> > > > NOT THERE. >> >> > > > The licenses are ALL included IN YOUR PHONE. Settings/About/Licenses. >> > > > Read them. Didn't know they were there? Your own fault for not >> > > > looking! >> >> > > > On Sep 28, 6:40 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > It's not really that. Is that they provide android and the "with >> > > > > Google" experience yet they do not differentiate between both. Then >> > > > > a >> > > > > year later they provide the most recognized developer with a C&D >> > > > > letter. >> > > > > And who is to say this will stop? >> >> > > > > On Sep 28, 5:12 pm, lbcoder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > This is nothing more than a minor change in procedure. The end >> > > > > > results >> > > > > > are no difference EXCEPT that the lawyers will be happy. >> >> > > > > > Read. >> > > > > > Think. >> >> > > > > > The only reason people are "pissed off" is that they are too dumb >> > > > > > to >> > > > > > read and understand what is going on. >> >> > > > > > On Sep 26, 3:17 am, W <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > Well said. This is firing a bullet right into your own toes. >> > > > > > > No one >> > > > > > > is disputing Google's legal right to do this. It's about how >> > > > > > > fundamentally stupid it is to piss off your most ardent and >> > > > > > > technically savvy supporters. Unless Google reverses course >> > > > > > > here, the >> > > > > > > next few plays are pretty straightforward-- (1) cyanogen and >> > > > > > > other >> > > > > > > developers move to another platform (sucking air, advocacy, and >> > > > > > > momentum from Android's adoption) or (2) a serious effort gets >> > > > > > > underway to replace the proprietary .apks/apis with true >> > > > > > > open-source >> > > > > > > replacements-- a map app that uses openstreetmap (with >> > > > > > > turn-by-turn), >> > > > > > > a better IMAP client for gmail, an alternative market app like >> > > > > > > andappstore, etc. Eventually the IP-unencumbered alternatives >> > > > > > > will be >> > > > > > > as good or better than Google's offerings, and what will Google >> > > > > > > have >> > > > > > > gained? This is how it's worked with open-source since the >> > > > > > > beginning >> > > > > > > of time. >> >> > > > > > > It is strategically unwise for Google to publicly advocate FOSS >> > > > > > > development, build an entire platform on FOSS codebase, promote >> > > > > > > FOSS >> > > > > > > philosophy to win market share and mindshare, then take a >> > > > > > > massive dump >> > > > > > > all over their burgeoning development community and fan base. >> > > > > > > (and if >> > > > > > > you don't think that's what's happened, read the comments on xda- >> > > > > > > developers, android blogs, or most of the Google apps in the >> > > > > > > Market) >> >> > > > > > > W >> >> > > > > > > On Sep 24, 8:08 pm, Josh Steiner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > This is one of the stupidest moves I've seen a company do in a >> > > > > > > > while. >> > > > > > > > First, wait til an organic community developer group forms >> > > > > > > > around your >> > > > > > > > product, wait til they release improved version of your free >> > > > > > > > OS, let them >> > > > > > > > hype it to death for you... then C&D them out of existence >> > > > > > > > until they all go >> > > > > > > > tinker with Maemo or Linmo (or iPhone or Web OS) devices. >> >> > > > > > > > It doesn't matter if Google, Inc are legally correct, this is >> > > > > > > > a boneheaded >> > > > > > > > business decision. >> >> > > > > > > > -Josh >> >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:03 PM, schwiz <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > So everytime I have seen someone ask about apps2sd for >> > > > > > > > > android, the >> > > > > > > > > response has been something along the lines of 'well if you >> > > > > > > > > don't like >> > > > > > > > > the space on the phone modify it yourself if its that easy' >> > > > > > > > > Someone >> > > > > > > > > takes this to heart and does it for free for thousands of >> > > > > > > > > users who >> > > > > > > > > are already supporting google and you shut them down? Now >> > > > > > > > > we have to >> > > > > > > > > pick between having space for apps on our phone -OR- not >> > > > > > > > > having the >> > > > > > > > > marketplace on our phone anymore so it doesn't even matter? >> > > > > > > > > I highly >> > > > > > > > > suggest if you are going to C&D cyanogen to give users who >> > > > > > > > > have PAID >> > > > > > > > > for a 'powered by google' android device to backup their >> > > > > > > > > google apps >> > > > > > > > > that they paid for. We have paid for the software we should >> > > > > > > > > be >> > > > > > > > > entitled to use it with any build of android we choose. >> > > > > > > > > Otherwise, >> > > > > > > > > you might want to try taking user requests a little more >> > > > > > > > > seriously. >> >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
