[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Digit, Thank you for not using the title Developer Advocate On Jun 30, 4:34 pm, Digit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm certainly going to be slapped for talking publicy about all this in this forum, but, as an Android team member, I really think it's time to correct some misunderstandings before the wild hyperbole that has been prospering in this thread goes further. First of all, regarding the alleged GPL violations: I'll remind you that the only components covered by the GPL that we distributed are: the kernel image and the emulator library. (no, we never distributed javadoc, please check your zip files before making bold but erroneous claims) We distributed updated binaries of these GPL-ed components to the ADC round 1 winners. Technically , any one of them can ask us for the corresponding sources, and would be free to distribute them under the GPL publicly. but nobody did that until now, and I doubt that would be very useful for the following reasons: - first of all, you could only use them to try to run the *same* M3 or M5 system images. - second, it's not even guaranteed that the updated emulator and/or kernel images would run M3/M5 well. As the guy in charge of the emulator, I certainly don't want to have to support that kind of combination. - the kernel sources are already available from our git server anyway. remember that, strictly speaking, the GPL only forces us to distribute the sources to the users that received the binaries, not to the public at large. you could ask us to be kind by releasing updated emulator sources, however I'm really certain that there would be nearly-zero practical value to anyone in the community. What you need is a new SDK, not a very few pieces made out of GPL sources. So in short, there hasn't been any GPL violation that I'm aware of, and rest assured that the Android team has been very cautious about licensing issues from the very start. If we really made a mistake, I think we'll be more than happy to correct it though. Now, regarding the NDA. Certain people have made some really wild guesses about it even though they've never seen it or know what it covers exactly. Please note that * nobody* from Google or the OHA ever claimed that the NDA applied to the GPL-ed code. it's here to protect the updated system images and APIs which are still, at the moment, not open source. why would we have updated our git server with updated kernel sources otherwise ? But the root of the problem is certainly not licensing but that there hasn't been a new public SDK release since M5, while at the same time a small group of people received updated versions privately. I really don't know precisely why this happened; but I'm sure it has more to do with logistics and reducing the burden of support while we shift priorities (to shipping real devices) rather than politics or any will of our part to hurt the community (come one guys, we are *not* that stupid... !) While others in the team may disagree, I think it was very very unfortunate; some of us are trying to prepare a new SDK release, but it's a lot harder than I can comment on here, so don't hold your breath because it might not happen that soon. And I'd like to add that, as we said, we're still totally committed to release the platform under the Apache 2.0 license. *Many* people in the Android team, and at Google in general, are looking forwards with excitement when this will happen this year. Finally, I'd like to thank all the people in the community that are currently keeping their cool despite this uncomfortable situation. We feel your pain, understand it, even though we can only ask you to be patient at the moment. Voila, that's all I'm going to say... thanks for your time and take care. On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:32 PM, André Charles Legendre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems that we have not the same way to read this : # No Agreements: There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard. But it seems that many people have the same question than me (consider the fact that part of SDK are derivative from GPL projects). Below a statement from Richard Stallman who details its answer so it would be easier to read without mistake : This is the mail archive of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list for the GCC project. Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] Message Nav:[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] GPL and NDA * To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org * Subject: GPL and NDA * From: Richard Stallman rms at gnu dot org * Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:07:10 -0600 (MDT) * Reply-to: rms at gnu dot org GPL-covered code may not be distributed under an NDA. To do so is a violation of
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Hi Shane yes GPL limits NDA. It seems that Android OS should not be published to anybody (Challenge winners, phone operators, phone manufacturers etc..) against any NDA. Android OS is mainly GPL as it is coming from linux. SDK is mainly Apache V2 license. But as Java is GPL2 now (not specs but code) it seems to me that javadoc from Open Java is GPL also. About NDA and Apache V2 it s interesting to know that it is some discussions inside the Apache foundation about limits of what you can put in NDA not to violate open standard requirements. To explain that we are not completely stupid to think that protecting new versions of SDK by NDA violate Open Standard Requirements, you will find below a document coming from : http://www.opensource.org/osr Open Standards Requirement for Software Mon, 2006-07-24 22:14 — Michael Tiemann The Requirement An open standard must not prohibit conforming implementations in open source software. The Criteria To comply with the Open Standards Requirement, an open standard must satisfy the following criteria. If an open standard does not meet these criteria, it will be discriminating against open source developers. 1. No Intentional Secrets: The standard MUST NOT withhold any detail necessary for interoperable implementation. As flaws are inevitable, the standard MUST define a process for fixing flaws identified during implementation and interoperability testing and to incorporate said changes into a revised version or superseding version of the standard to be released under terms that do not violate the OSR. 2. Availability: The standard MUST be freely and publicly available (e.g., from a stable web site) under royalty-free terms at reasonable and non-discriminatory cost. 3. Patents: All patents essential to implementation of the standard MUST: * be licensed under royalty-free terms for unrestricted use, or * be covered by a promise of non-assertion when practiced by open source software 4. No Agreements: There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard. 5. No OSR-Incompatible Dependencies: Implementation of the standard MUST NOT require any other technology that fails to meet the criteria of this Requirement. I think that Android team, should give back some comments. Regards Andre Charles Legendre --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
huu ? I think there is a misunderstanding there, the M5 Eclipse plugin is available: http://android.googlecode.com/files/adt-m5-rc14.tar.gz its the first entry on the download page at: http://code.google.com/p/android/downloads/list On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Joa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe Andre is on to much. I am not spending a terrible amount of time this morning, so quickcheck, please help me out. 1. The SDK itself... that hasn't been released open source anyhow... No discussion there. 2. The Linux derivative work might not have changed since posted on the code page. Carriers are a different topic, but they can post the source code with release of branded handsets and they are complying with GPL but it's not of real use to anyone 3. I've downloaded the Android Eclipse plugin from the code page however. I suppose it is considered derivative work and falls under the Eclipse Public License. Up until m3-rc37 they've been on the ball. m5-rc14 and m5-rc15 are not to be found, so they missed that. Big deal, it should be easy to update the download site, no reason to get hot about that unless the EPL enforcement police objects (now is there such a thing). For inside-track SDK releases that needed changes to the Eclipse plugin... all they need to do is release it to the NDA'ed parties and they're OK, I believe. On Jun 29, 10:42 pm, Shane Isbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting point. It looks as though Google is releasing GPL modified code for public releases but not for the private, NDA distributions. Shane On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM, André Charles Legendre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi You will find below a question and its answer coming from : http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement? No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis. If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL. I would like to have an answer from Android team about this FSF position about NDA and by extension I would like to know if Android Team plan to publish new release to all of us. All of us got big damages by the fact that we are locked and that we cannot compete anymore with people having last release. Some young company, who invested a lot around android are now completely stuck because of this issue. In any case it seems to me that most of Android community think that it is not fair to keep private new release of SDK. Regards Andre Charles Legendre --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
2. The Linux derivative work might not have changed since posted on the code page. Not to mention the git repository (http://git.android.com/) has been updated within the past 12 days. It shows dozens of commits in the past two months. I would think the burden is on Mr. Legendre or Mr. Isbell to demonstrate that the kernel being distributed to people as binaries differs from what was available at the repository at time of distribution and that the source to those GPLv2 binaries is not available by written request. So far, I have seen no such proof from either person, or anyone else. 3. I've downloaded the Android Eclipse plugin from the code page however. I suppose it is considered derivative work and falls under the Eclipse Public License. Up until m3-rc37 they've been on the ball. m5-rc14 and m5-rc15 are not to be found, so they missed that. Big deal, it should be easy to update the download site, no reason to get hot about that unless the EPL enforcement police objects (now is there such a thing). For inside-track SDK releases that needed changes to the Eclipse plugin... all they need to do is release it to the NDA'ed parties and they're OK, I believe. Is the Android Eclipse plug-in GPLv2? If not, does the license it is under require source distribution? I dislike open source violations as much as the next guy, but great accusations require great proof, and I have not yet seen such proof. -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ -- Available Now! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Mark Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. The Linux derivative work might not have changed since posted on the code page. Not to mention the git repository (http://git.android.com/) has been updated within the past 12 days. It shows dozens of commits in the past two months. I would think the burden is on Mr. Legendre or Mr. Isbell to demonstrate that the kernel being distributed to people as binaries differs from what was available at the repository at time of distribution and that the source to those GPLv2 binaries is not available by written request. So far, I have seen no such proof from either person, or anyone else. Thanks for that nugget of information Mr. Murphy, but really how am I to dig up a distribution I have no access to? I am merely pointing out that the download page that Romain said hosts Google's GPL code to hasn't been updated (since Feb. 08). Shane 3. I've downloaded the Android Eclipse plugin from the code page however. I suppose it is considered derivative work and falls under the Eclipse Public License. Up until m3-rc37 they've been on the ball. m5-rc14 and m5-rc15 are not to be found, so they missed that. Big deal, it should be easy to update the download site, no reason to get hot about that unless the EPL enforcement police objects (now is there such a thing). For inside-track SDK releases that needed changes to the Eclipse plugin... all they need to do is release it to the NDA'ed parties and they're OK, I believe. Is the Android Eclipse plug-in GPLv2? If not, does the license it is under require source distribution? I dislike open source violations as much as the next guy, but great accusations require great proof, and I have not yet seen such proof. -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ -- Available Now! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Thanks for that nugget of information Mr. Murphy, but really how am I to dig up a distribution I have no access to? My point exactly. I am merely pointing out that the download page that Romain said hosts Google's GPL code to hasn't been updated (since Feb. 08). And if that's what you posted, I'd've had no quibble. But you said (June 30th, 1:42am): Interesting point. It looks as though Google is releasing GPL modified code for public releases but not for the private, NDA distributions. And I'm looking for any proof backing up this statement. I'm not saying you're wrong -- you could very well be right. But proof entails demonstrating that the private, NDA distributions are receiving binaries of GPLv2'd code that do not reflect the Git repository or the tarball. -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ -- Available Now! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Mark Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for that nugget of information Mr. Murphy, but really how am I to dig up a distribution I have no access to? My point exactly. I am merely pointing out that the download page that Romain said hosts Google's GPL code to hasn't been updated (since Feb. 08). And if that's what you posted, I'd've had no quibble. But you said (June 30th, 1:42am): Interesting point. It looks as though Google is releasing GPL modified code for public releases but not for the private, NDA distributions. Now that we are into the minutia, a git repository is not a distribution. And yes, I know that GPL does not require a distribution of code, just that the code is available. I am starting to feel like that Chaplin character that picked up the red flag in the The Great Dictator Shane And I'm looking for any proof backing up this statement. I'm not saying you're wrong -- you could very well be right. But proof entails demonstrating that the private, NDA distributions are receiving binaries of GPLv2'd code that do not reflect the Git repository or the tarball. -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ -- Available Now! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Hi If Android OS has not been improved from February it would be even worse. I would mean that this project is not well and alive. If we consider that SDK is not an Open Source project it would solved also many issues but it would mean that the code is all new and not tested and I am not sure that it would be a good news.. But SDK use a lot of open source projects : WebKit, OpenGl ES, SGL, OpenCore, FreeType, eclipse, linux libraries etc... The free side give a big competitive advantage to Android, because Android get very good code, ready made and tested. And Android get a good image and use it because it is 'Open' at the contrary of some competitors. As some of libraries of Android SDK are derivative work from projects licensed under GPL, Berkley etc... it is not so simple to say that Android SDK is not or does not needed to be open source. My aim is not to open a class action etc... my aim is to get attention of Android team on this issue. As Android Team want and say that Android is an open project it would be nice for us that they release last version to us. Regards Andre Charles Legendre --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
On Jun 30, 9:35 am, André Charles Legendre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi If Android OS has not been improved from February it would be even worse. I would mean that this project is not well and alive. Not sure about the improved part it certainly has changed. Check out the Google I/O keynote video where Android is shown off. It sure looks different from what we've got with mc5-rc15 If we consider that SDK is not an Open Source project it would solved also many issues but it would mean that the code is all new and not tested and I am not sure that it would be a good news.. But SDK use a lot of open source projects : WebKit, OpenGl ES, SGL, OpenCore, FreeType, eclipse, linux libraries etc... The free side give a big competitive advantage to Android, because Android get very good code, ready made and tested. And Android get a good image and use it because it is 'Open' at the contrary of some competitors. You hit it on the head. Let's put that little open source audit of ours to rest. When Google go out an set aside $10mio to throw at people like us, you can rest assured they set aside an equal amount (or more) to pay IP lawyers to vet their strategy and every step they take along the way. The thing is... values got under the wheels here. Not everything that's possible is in fact desirable. Going for it is the mark of EVIL doers and Google look pretty shabby right now. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Hi Joa You seems to forget the main things : Does Android SDK need to be open source as using a lot of Open Source code ? If yes are Open Source licenses compatible with NDA ? It seems that SDK use GPL code and should not be published under NDA. It even seems that NDA is not compatible wit open source initiative rules whatever open source license you have. It means that Android teams should publish it to us as soon as possible. Not only to be respectful of license but to be respectful for people who started here because they trusted Android team. If SDK is closed; it should be official because open is written everywhere in Android website and many people can misunderstand. If you mean that Google does not care because that they have so much money and lawyers that they have not to respect licenses, it seems to me a very poor argument. And I cannot believe that anybody in Google could have this way of thinking. Mistake has a bigger probability. Mistakes can always be corrected. Regards Andre Charles Legendre --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
I chatted with Mark M. offline and I would like to clarify a few things. First, I agree that leveling charges of license violations is serious, personally I doubt Google is that stupid. I'm merely pointing out that when Romain gave a link of released GPL distributions, they were all outdated, so I didn't think it was a valid response to Andre. Google doesn't need to do an actual archived distribution, if the modified code is in the git repository. The only people that are in a position right now to verify anything are the OHA and other individuals with access to the distributions. What I can say that if Google is having these accusations leveled against them, it is because of their dual open/closed policy they are following; in a sense wanting to have one's cake and eat it too, regardless of the legality. It's also a sign that Google is eroding the goodwill of their community to the point where members do not trust them to do the right thing. Thanks, Shane On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Shane Isbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Mark Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for that nugget of information Mr. Murphy, but really how am I to dig up a distribution I have no access to? My point exactly. I am merely pointing out that the download page that Romain said hosts Google's GPL code to hasn't been updated (since Feb. 08). And if that's what you posted, I'd've had no quibble. But you said (June 30th, 1:42am): Interesting point. It looks as though Google is releasing GPL modified code for public releases but not for the private, NDA distributions. Now that we are into the minutia, a git repository is not a distribution. And yes, I know that GPL does not require a distribution of code, just that the code is available. I am starting to feel like that Chaplin character that picked up the red flag in the The Great Dictator Shane And I'm looking for any proof backing up this statement. I'm not saying you're wrong -- you could very well be right. But proof entails demonstrating that the private, NDA distributions are receiving binaries of GPLv2'd code that do not reflect the Git repository or the tarball. -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ -- Available Now! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Hi Shane Open Source Initiative consider that to be open source a project cannot be published under NDA. (see below) http://www.opensource.org/osr The question is : is Open Source Initiative stupid to ask for this requirement ? Look at the board members before to say that they are stupid : http://www.opensource.org/board Personally I believe that this requirement is normal and problems that we have now with Android are a good demonstration : the community out of the NDA is locked and unhappy. Regards Andre Charles Legendre http://www.opensource.org/osr Open Standards Requirement for Software Mon, 2006-07-24 22:14 — Michael Tiemann The Requirement An open standard must not prohibit conforming implementations in open source software. The Criteria To comply with the Open Standards Requirement, an open standard must satisfy the following criteria. If an open standard does not meet these criteria, it will be discriminating against open source developers. 1. No Intentional Secrets: The standard MUST NOT withhold any detail necessary for interoperable implementation. As flaws are inevitable, the standard MUST define a process for fixing flaws identified during implementation and interoperability testing and to incorporate said changes into a revised version or superseding version of the standard to be released under terms that do not violate the OSR. 2. Availability: The standard MUST be freely and publicly available (e.g., from a stable web site) under royalty-free terms at reasonable and non-discriminatory cost. 3. Patents: All patents essential to implementation of the standard MUST: * be licensed under royalty-free terms for unrestricted use, or * be covered by a promise of non-assertion when practiced by open source software 4. No Agreements: There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard. 5. No OSR-Incompatible Dependencies: Implementation of the standard MUST NOT require any other technology that fails to meet the criteria of this Requirement. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Open Source Initiative consider that to be open source a project cannot be published under NDA. (see below) http://www.opensource.org/osr False. The document says that open *standards* should not have NDAs attached to them (To comply with the Open Standards Requirement, an 'open standard' must satisfy the following criteria...There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard.). Android is not positioned as an open standard, AFAIK. If so, then this document does not apply to this case. This is not to say that distributing open source releases under an NDA is a good thing -- it's not, IMHO. -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ -- Available Now! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:41 AM, André Charles Legendre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Shane Open Source Initiative consider that to be open source a project cannot be published under NDA. (see below) http://www.opensource.org/osr The question is : is Open Source Initiative stupid to ask for this requirement ? Look at the board members before to say that they are stupid : http://www.opensource.org/board The requirement is not stupid, but the way I read it is that the licensor can't require that the licensee include NDAs within distributions of the derivative open-source work, while still calling it open source; it does not preclude the option of the licensee doing so if they want. For example, Google can use ASL 2.0 code, modify and redistribute with an NDA. They may not however, license their own code (or derivatives) as ASL AND attach an additional NDA clause to the the ASL license, saying that anyone modifying the ASL code must also attach the NDA. That would go against open-source requirements. I really don't want to do Google's homework for them, so they are the best to respond. Shane Personally I believe that this requirement is normal and problems that we have now with Android are a good demonstration : the community out of the NDA is locked and unhappy. Regards Andre Charles Legendre http://www.opensource.org/osr Open Standards Requirement for Software Mon, 2006-07-24 22:14 — Michael Tiemann The Requirement An open standard must not prohibit conforming implementations in open source software. The Criteria To comply with the Open Standards Requirement, an open standard must satisfy the following criteria. If an open standard does not meet these criteria, it will be discriminating against open source developers. 1. No Intentional Secrets: The standard MUST NOT withhold any detail necessary for interoperable implementation. As flaws are inevitable, the standard MUST define a process for fixing flaws identified during implementation and interoperability testing and to incorporate said changes into a revised version or superseding version of the standard to be released under terms that do not violate the OSR. 2. Availability: The standard MUST be freely and publicly available (e.g., from a stable web site) under royalty-free terms at reasonable and non-discriminatory cost. 3. Patents: All patents essential to implementation of the standard MUST: * be licensed under royalty-free terms for unrestricted use, or * be covered by a promise of non-assertion when practiced by open source software 4. No Agreements: There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard. 5. No OSR-Incompatible Dependencies: Implementation of the standard MUST NOT require any other technology that fails to meet the criteria of this Requirement. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
It seems that we have not the same way to read this : # No Agreements: There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard. But it seems that many people have the same question than me (consider the fact that part of SDK are derivative from GPL projects). Below a statement from Richard Stallman who details its answer so it would be easier to read without mistake : This is the mail archive of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list for the GCC project. Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] Message Nav:[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] GPL and NDA * To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org * Subject: GPL and NDA * From: Richard Stallman rms at gnu dot org * Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:07:10 -0600 (MDT) * Reply-to: rms at gnu dot org GPL-covered code may not be distributed under an NDA. To do so is a violation of the GPL. If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered code that is copyright FSF, please inform the FSF immediately. If it involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL. It is possible for a person or company to develop changes to a GPL-covered program and sign an NDA promising not to release these changes *to anyone*. This is a different case. As long as these changes are not distributed at all, a fortiori they are not distributed in a way that violates the GPL. However, if and when the changes are distributed to another person or outside the company, they must be distributed under the terms of the GPL, not under an NDA. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
On Jun 30, 10:35 am, André Charles Legendre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Joa You seems to forget the main things : Does Android SDK need to be open source as using a lot of Open Source code ? Dalvik demonstrates that they went to great lenghts to avoid dependencies on their part, e.g. having to rely on Sun Java. And even if they were in violation. We'd be buidling on a system that's compromised even more than it is at this point. Developers don't have an interest in sinking their platform. But are they crazy enough to hang in there to get pounded in you know where? At this point... I've stopped working. Android has been pitched as open source all along. Where is the dual strategy coming from all of a sudden? It is mislieading to announce the release of parts of Android as open source in the future when in reality Google started marching in the opposite direction. What a shame. But I'm running in circles here... Let's turn to the inside-trackers for a few thoughts though. Looks like things for *those* guys might turn out really bad. Imagine: You won, cashed in $25K, signed the papers and told all your friends and family. Pride and joy. Now you go and you quit your dayjob, run to the bank for credit. More money gets thrown at you. Just in time to start worrying if you're next in line for a rude awakening. Man... the carriers haven't even gotten involved yet and Google drive a wedge in the community like that. Uh oh. In the end... some of the inside- trackers might end up really messed. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
I'm certainly going to be slapped for talking publicy about all this in this forum, but, as an Android team member, I really think it's time to correct some misunderstandings before the wild hyperbole that has been prospering in this thread goes further. First of all, regarding the alleged GPL violations: I'll remind you that the only components covered by the GPL that we distributed are: the kernel image and the emulator library. (no, we never distributed javadoc, please check your zip files before making bold but erroneous claims) We distributed updated binaries of these GPL-ed components to the ADC round 1 winners. Technically , any one of them can ask us for the corresponding sources, and would be free to distribute them under the GPL publicly. but nobody did that until now, and I doubt that would be very useful for the following reasons: - first of all, you could only use them to try to run the *same* M3 or M5 system images. - second, it's not even guaranteed that the updated emulator and/or kernel images would run M3/M5 well. As the guy in charge of the emulator, I certainly don't want to have to support that kind of combination. - the kernel sources are already available from our git server anyway. remember that, strictly speaking, the GPL only forces us to distribute the sources to the users that received the binaries, not to the public at large. you could ask us to be kind by releasing updated emulator sources, however I'm really certain that there would be nearly-zero practical value to anyone in the community. What you need is a new SDK, not a very few pieces made out of GPL sources. So in short, there hasn't been any GPL violation that I'm aware of, and rest assured that the Android team has been very cautious about licensing issues from the very start. If we really made a mistake, I think we'll be more than happy to correct it though. Now, regarding the NDA. Certain people have made some really wild guesses about it even though they've never seen it or know what it covers exactly. Please note that * nobody* from Google or the OHA ever claimed that the NDA applied to the GPL-ed code. it's here to protect the updated system images and APIs which are still, at the moment, not open source. why would we have updated our git server with updated kernel sources otherwise ? But the root of the problem is certainly not licensing but that there hasn't been a new public SDK release since M5, while at the same time a small group of people received updated versions privately. I really don't know precisely why this happened; but I'm sure it has more to do with logistics and reducing the burden of support while we shift priorities (to shipping real devices) rather than politics or any will of our part to hurt the community (come one guys, we are *not* that stupid... !) While others in the team may disagree, I think it was very very unfortunate; some of us are trying to prepare a new SDK release, but it's a lot harder than I can comment on here, so don't hold your breath because it might not happen that soon. And I'd like to add that, as we said, we're still totally committed to release the platform under the Apache 2.0 license. *Many* people in the Android team, and at Google in general, are looking forwards with excitement when this will happen this year. Finally, I'd like to thank all the people in the community that are currently keeping their cool despite this uncomfortable situation. We feel your pain, understand it, even though we can only ask you to be patient at the moment. Voila, that's all I'm going to say... thanks for your time and take care. On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:32 PM, André Charles Legendre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems that we have not the same way to read this : # No Agreements: There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard. But it seems that many people have the same question than me (consider the fact that part of SDK are derivative from GPL projects). Below a statement from Richard Stallman who details its answer so it would be easier to read without mistake : This is the mail archive of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list for the GCC project. Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] Message Nav:[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] GPL and NDA * To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org * Subject: GPL and NDA * From: Richard Stallman rms at gnu dot org * Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:07:10 -0600 (MDT) * Reply-to: rms at gnu dot org GPL-covered code may not be distributed under an NDA. To do so is a violation of the GPL. If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered code that is copyright FSF, please inform the FSF immediately. If it involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
my two US cents ain't worth much these days but IMO, Shane hit the nail on the head a couple of emails back, Google is eroding the goodwill of their community Google is going to do what they want irregardless even if morally Andr makes the right arguments, especially on how Sergey led the community to believe on YouTube that things were not going to be like this. What amazes me most is that, despite ongoing pleas and petitions from Plusminus and other outstanding member of this community, no responsible person at Google has stuck their neck out of the door and made a statement. That is very worrying: is the leadership lost? Joa wrote: On Jun 30, 10:35am, "Andr Charles Legendre" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Joa You seems to forget the main things : Does Android SDK need to be open source as using a lot of Open Source code ? Dalvik demonstrates that they went to great lenghts to avoid dependencies on their part, e.g. having to rely on Sun Java. And even if they were in violation. We'd be buidling on a system that's compromised even more than it is at this point. Developers don't have an interest in sinking their platform. But are they crazy enough to hang in there to get pounded in you know where? At this point... I've stopped working. Android has been pitched as "open source" all along. Where is the "dual strategy" coming from all of a sudden? It is mislieading to announce the release of parts of Android as open source "in the future" when in reality Google started marching in the opposite direction. What a shame. But I'm running in circles here... Let's turn to the inside-trackers for a few thoughts though. Looks like things for *those* guys might turn out really bad. Imagine: You won, cashed in $25K, signed the papers and told all your friends and family. Pride and joy. Now you go and you quit your dayjob, run to the bank for credit. More money gets thrown at you. Just in time to start worrying if you're next in line for a rude awakening. Man... the carriers haven't even gotten involved yet and Google drive a wedge in the community like that. Uh oh. In the end... some of the inside- trackers might end up really messed. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-no... For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Hi Digit thanks for the update. Back on topic. No SDK updates in sight unless we are part of the privileged. How that comes across? Not well obviously, as has been elaborated. As long as things play out in Kafkaesque dimensions, and the only way to get something out is by rattling the cage, the community will either die, or speculation is going to remain a perpetual problem. You (and I say you, as the Google team) have *got* to do a better job at this. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Joa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Digit thanks for the update. Back on topic. No SDK updates in sight unless we are part of the privileged. How that comes across? Not well obviously, as has been elaborated. As long as things play out in Kafkaesque dimensions, and the only way to get something out is by rattling the cage, Lol, Google is very much like the Castle and we outsiders are like the lowly land surveyor, K.. I suppose the ADC winners would be Barnabas. Unfortunately rattling the cage didn't work out very well in that story. Shane the community will either die, or speculation is going to remain a perpetual problem. You (and I say you, as the Google team) have *got* to do a better job at this. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Hi Digit First of thank's to brake this wall of silence which hurt all of us. This silence is probably the biggest pain for us. Why not publish new SDK release ? Why not publish some news to the community ? Regards Andre Legendre --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Romain, I suppose I don't have to tell you that a great number of coders invested a good amount of time. Many had been in it for the Challenge only, I am sure, but then there's a bunch who like to code and create a valuable product. By now it should be clear that the community expects more. Way more... in terms of open process. I can't believe there's a cordoned-off inside track. Frankly I am not aware this is in the open source playbook. Did Google write an amendment we've missed? You are well respected out here as you've been assisting Android developers including me for months now. Thanks for breaking the silence (a little). Perhaps you are personally unhappy with the whole situation yourself. I bet some are... For everybody's sanity, please re-open communication channels and access to SDK updates. JP On Jun 28, 11:03 am, Romain Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WTF ?!?!?! That sounded like that there may be no update to the SDK until the handsets launch? Exactly no one would profit from such a decision! There has been no official announcement either way, please do not make any conclusion based on wild guesses. -- Romain Guywww.curious-creature.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
I would like to say that for Android community it would be a must if we could get new SDK releases. I think that Android team should go to the following link at FSF.org http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions You would find the following text : The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you. It seems to me that, as soon as Android team publish new SDK release to the winners (including Linux and other GPL code) they should publish it with GPL license and it should be public to all of us. I would like to have official Android team opinion about that, it seems to me very important. I just cannot believe that Android team could made some major GPL violation with the agreement of Google legal division. Sometime we make mistake, sometime it is better to correct them. Regards Andre Charles Legendre --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
There is no violation of the GPL. All the GPL code modified by Google has been released publicly (for instance here: http://code.google.com/p/android/downloads/list). On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:57 PM, André Charles Legendre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to say that for Android community it would be a must if we could get new SDK releases. I think that Android team should go to the following link at FSF.org http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions You would find the following text : The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you. It seems to me that, as soon as Android team publish new SDK release to the winners (including Linux and other GPL code) they should publish it with GPL license and it should be public to all of us. I would like to have official Android team opinion about that, it seems to me very important. I just cannot believe that Android team could made some major GPL violation with the agreement of Google legal division. Sometime we make mistake, sometime it is better to correct them. Regards Andre Charles Legendre -- Romain Guy www.curious-creature.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Josh, I have to agree with Joa. Thanks for the inside info!! The fact that sdk updates are withheld from the earliest of adopters is ridiculous. On Jun 28, 11:37 am, Joa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great write-up Josh, just as I thought. Thanks for the legwork. NDAs, geez. What a sham. On Jun 27, 10:13 am, Josh Guilfoyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no official comment from Google, but after talking to several sources on the team, it is quite clear that they do not expect a release until the handsets launch. The ADC round 1 winners are now under NDA with Google to get access to private updates which they are not allowed to discuss or demonstrate publicly. For more information, read my blog entry: http://devtcg.blogspot.com/2008/05/detail-of-next-public-sdk.html On Jun 17, 10:24 pm, maceghost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone from google care to comment on this ? It seems like r15 is a bit buggy, an update would be in order... On May 11, 8:16 pm, Biosopher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Mark Armendariz wrote: Josh, I have to agree with Joa. Thanks for the inside info!! The fact that sdk updates are withheld from the earliest of adopters is ridiculous. Yes, I agree that this is clearly unacceptable. Obviously we should immediately demand our money back. -- ┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ─ http://www.cowlark.com ─ │ I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my │ telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out │ how to use my telephone. --- Bjarne Stroustrup signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Maybe they have reasons why they are not releasing a new one. But I at least want to know why :( On Jun 29, 11:19 pm, David Given [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Armendariz wrote: Josh, I have to agree with Joa. Thanks for the inside info!! The fact that sdk updates are withheld from the earliest of adopters is ridiculous. Yes, I agree that this is clearly unacceptable. Obviously we should immediately demand our money back. -- ┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ─http://www.cowlark.com─ │ I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my │ telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out │ how to use my telephone. --- Bjarne Stroustrup signature.asc 1KDownload --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
On Jun 29, 12:57 pm, André Charles Legendre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just cannot believe that Android team could made some major GPL violation with the agreement of Google legal division. Sometime we make mistake, sometime it is better to correct them. I wouldn't expect Google to fail on a technicality like that. The disappointment is in failing expectations raised by the promises made - go back to the featured video on code.google.com and listen to when Sergey Brin and Steve Horowitz discuss the availability of the SDK, that it will be open source in the future. That was posted on youtube last year. Listen to what Sergey Brin says or, for convenience, here is a transcript of part of the presentation: Android ... is a new open source operating system and software platform for mobile phone. Just like I learned how to write great services and software upon free tools for the web, like Linux and GNU, now with Android, you will be able to do the exact same things on mobile phones. The software is all free, the source is completely available and we expect great new powerful application to be developed on it. The SDK is being released right now, and you can download it... What happened? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Hi You will find below a question and its answer coming from : http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement? No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis. If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL. I would like to have an answer from Android team about this FSF position about NDA and by extension I would like to know if Android Team plan to publish new release to all of us. All of us got big damages by the fact that we are locked and that we cannot compete anymore with people having last release. Some young company, who invested a lot around android are now completely stuck because of this issue. In any case it seems to me that most of Android community think that it is not fair to keep private new release of SDK. Regards Andre Charles Legendre --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Hi You will find below a question and its answer coming from : http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement? No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis. If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL. I would like to have an answer from Android team about this FSF position about NDA and by extension I would like to know if Android Team plan to publish new release to all of us. All of us got big damages by the fact that we are locked and that we cannot compete anymore with people having last release. Some young company, who invested a lot around android are now completely stuck because of this issue. In any case it seems to me that most of Android community think that it is not fair to keep private new release of SDK. Regards Andre Charles Legendre --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Ok, now, in the same time, Apple had released 8 updates of iphone sdk. It's not about tech, it about how people(community) thinking. -- Fred --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Great write-up Josh, just as I thought. Thanks for the legwork. NDAs, geez. What a sham. On Jun 27, 10:13 am, Josh Guilfoyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no official comment from Google, but after talking to several sources on the team, it is quite clear that they do not expect a release until the handsets launch. The ADC round 1 winners are now under NDA with Google to get access to private updates which they are not allowed to discuss or demonstrate publicly. For more information, read my blog entry: http://devtcg.blogspot.com/2008/05/detail-of-next-public-sdk.html On Jun 17, 10:24 pm, maceghost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone from google care to comment on this ? It seems like r15 is a bit buggy, an update would be in order... On May 11, 8:16 pm, Biosopher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
WTF ?!?!?! That sounded like that there may be no update to the SDK until the handsets launch? Exactly no one would profit from such a decision! There has been no official announcement either way, please do not make any conclusion based on wild guesses. -- Romain Guy www.curious-creature.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
There is no official comment from Google, but after talking to several sources on the team, it is quite clear that they do not expect a release until the handsets launch. The ADC round 1 winners are now under NDA with Google to get access to private updates which they are not allowed to discuss or demonstrate publicly. For more information, read my blog entry: http://devtcg.blogspot.com/2008/05/detail-of-next-public-sdk.html On Jun 17, 10:24 pm, maceghost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone from google care to comment on this ? It seems like r15 is a bit buggy, an update would be in order... On May 11, 8:16 pm, Biosopher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We need regular updates...especially because this isn't a shipped product so Google should be providing updates more rapidly. Google's stated approach to dev rapid prototyping so they should be putting out 2 new SDKs for each AppleSDK. That said, I'm glad they didn't put out one during the last month of the Round One Challenge. A new release might have broken one of the many work arounds I'd created for the many issues I addressed for submitting for Round 1. Now though, I hope many of those bugs have been squashed in the past 2 months. SO! Please give us the newSDKas I'm sure I'm no different from other developers...holding off dev until the new release comes out. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
If that's the case, Google is just another closed, mobile player and Android is just another mobile system that will fragment the market. We've all been had. But thanks for the update. Shane On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Josh Guilfoyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no official comment from Google, but after talking to several sources on the team, it is quite clear that they do not expect a release until the handsets launch. The ADC round 1 winners are now under NDA with Google to get access to private updates which they are not allowed to discuss or demonstrate publicly. For more information, read my blog entry: http://devtcg.blogspot.com/2008/05/detail-of-next-public-sdk.html On Jun 17, 10:24 pm, maceghost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone from google care to comment on this ? It seems like r15 is a bit buggy, an update would be in order... On May 11, 8:16 pm, Biosopher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We need regular updates...especially because this isn't a shipped product so Google should be providing updates more rapidly. Google's stated approach to dev rapid prototyping so they should be putting out 2 new SDKs for each AppleSDK. That said, I'm glad they didn't put out one during the last month of the Round One Challenge. A new release might have broken one of the many work arounds I'd created for the many issues I addressed for submitting for Round 1. Now though, I hope many of those bugs have been squashed in the past 2 months. SO! Please give us the newSDKas I'm sure I'm no different from other developers...holding off dev until the new release comes out. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
As a technology Android is a marginal improvement over say a full CDC platform; the real excitement, at least for me personally, was that individual developers could move in and change the industry because they would finally be able to enter and push ideas before the platform was mature and before all the big players began layering the existing mobile ecosystem over Android. The sad part is that by the time Android developers get the SDK and can finally enter the fray, it will be too late. All the big players will have slithered their tentacles through every nook and cranny, leaving the individual developer gazing onwards, hands grasping into the empty air. Nokia has a good developer focus and I know has even been at odds with carriers over this at times. Symbian also has a predominant, established position in the market. I'm hoping that they and the other handset manufacturers can get a UI framework that rivals Android so that we can finally get things moving. This doesn't at all solve the problems with the ecosystem, but at least the market size will be substantial out of the gate. We can also look to a leader who understands mobile. I suppose that Android will be successful as a platform, but I have my doubts about how open it will really be once it wiggles onto the device. Shane On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Shane Isbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If that's the case, Google is just another closed, mobile player and Android is just another mobile system that will fragment the market. We've all been had. But thanks for the update. Shane On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Josh Guilfoyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no official comment from Google, but after talking to several sources on the team, it is quite clear that they do not expect a release until the handsets launch. The ADC round 1 winners are now under NDA with Google to get access to private updates which they are not allowed to discuss or demonstrate publicly. For more information, read my blog entry: http://devtcg.blogspot.com/2008/05/detail-of-next-public-sdk.html On Jun 17, 10:24 pm, maceghost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone from google care to comment on this ? It seems like r15 is a bit buggy, an update would be in order... On May 11, 8:16 pm, Biosopher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We need regular updates...especially because this isn't a shipped product so Google should be providing updates more rapidly. Google's stated approach to dev rapid prototyping so they should be putting out 2 new SDKs for each AppleSDK. That said, I'm glad they didn't put out one during the last month of the Round One Challenge. A new release might have broken one of the many work arounds I'd created for the many issues I addressed for submitting for Round 1. Now though, I hope many of those bugs have been squashed in the past 2 months. SO! Please give us the newSDKas I'm sure I'm no different from other developers...holding off dev until the new release comes out. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
We need regular updates...especially because this isn't a shipped product so Google should be providing updates more rapidly. Google's stated approach to dev rapid prototyping so they should be putting out 2 new SDKs for each Apple SDK. That said, I'm glad they didn't put out one during the last month of the Round One Challenge. A new release might have broken one of the many work arounds I'd created for the many issues I addressed for submitting for Round 1. Now though, I hope many of those bugs have been squashed in the past 2 months. SO! Please give us the new SDK as I'm sure I'm no different from other developers...holding off dev until the new release comes out. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
I just wonder when is the soon release date On May 9, 9:55 pm, Evan JIANG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good question. In the same time, Apple had released 5 updates of iphone sdk. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's been more than two months since the release of m5-rc15. Can anyone from Google give us an update on the next SDK release schedule? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Huh? Is this a fair comparison? Android is a preview release, not a shipped product. I wouldn't care about another SDK update until the product is open sourced where updates will be orders of magnitudes greater. The current SDK and the ADC are enough incentives for experimenting and establishing a base on the forthcoming Android market place. Let the OHA teams concentrate on the initial shipped product--first impression is of utmost importance. On May 9, 6:55 pm, Evan JIANG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good question. In the same time, Apple had released 5 updates of iphone sdk. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's been more than two months since the release of m5-rc15. Can anyone from Google give us an update on the next SDK release schedule? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
I agree. However, it would be really helpful to have an updated SDK, even for first impressions. I just hope soon will be sooner. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 6:57 PM, caliente [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Huh? Is this a fair comparison? Android is a preview release, not a shipped product. I wouldn't care about another SDK update until the product is open sourced where updates will be orders of magnitudes greater. The current SDK and the ADC are enough incentives for experimenting and establishing a base on the forthcoming Android market place. Let the OHA teams concentrate on the initial shipped product--first impression is of utmost importance. On May 9, 6:55 pm, Evan JIANG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good question. In the same time, Apple had released 5 updates of iphone sdk. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's been more than two months since the release of m5-rc15. Can anyone from Google give us an update on the next SDK release schedule? -- best, -oscar Oscar Castañeda --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: SDK Update?
Good question. In the same time, Apple had released 5 updates of iphone sdk. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's been more than two months since the release of m5-rc15. Can anyone from Google give us an update on the next SDK release schedule? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
