Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail and so on require a license to distribute them. Cyanogen doesn't have one. Google C&D's because of that. Case closed.
Google is clearly within their rights to C&D over those applications. The curious question, though, is "why would they do so?". Cyanogen is distributed for phones that shipped with those apps anyway(so it isn't as though there is any huge pile of licensing revenue on the table here), and copyrights, unlike trademarks, don't have to be defended unless you want to.
There must be some reason why Google would risk upsetting a group made up, more or less, of self-selected enthusiasts of Android and its continued development, in exchange for no obvious money. Is Google confident enough in the value of its apps that it sees those Google specific apps as a future distinguishing feature for Android phones, one that OEMs will pay good money for? Are potential telco partners pissed that Cyanogen is something eminently worth rooting your handset for?
The existence of their legal right is uncontroversial; but I find their potential motives a bit baffling.
It's pretty clear that Google goes way out of its way to provide APIs and guidance on using its stuff as a third party, so I suspect that there's specifics in this C&D that aren't just "you used our service." Specifically, if they were re-packaging Google's logos or the like, then there's real copyright concerns there.
I'm guessing it's like having a pickup game of softball at your local municipal field, and you get busted. Why? You need a permit. It's free and easy to get, but you still need to get it.
Google's saying "We ask everybody else to play by these rules, which aren't even onerous, so you need to as well."
I can't RTFM right now - slashdotted - but the TOS for using Google Maps for example is very explicit and very limited. (You can only use Google Maps from within browser, and you cannot cache the images.) Google doesn't necessarily own the data; they have licensing agreements with data providers. So Google has to uphold its agreement with the data providers.
While I personally have abandonded using Google Maps for my project because of the license - something I find frustrating and disappointing - it is, after all, the agreeement Google must live by and enforce.
You mean trademarks like Gmail(tm) and the Google(tm) logo? Which are almost certainly being distributed as part of those apps?
And, so what?
If I sell or give you a genuine boxed copy of Microsoft Windows(tm), what law am I breaking? And, if I choose to advertise the fact that I am selling that same product and want to use the trademarked name in my advertisement, Microsoft has no grounds to stop me. They can force me to specifically state that the name is trademarked by them, but that's all.
Trademark exists not to protect businesses, but to protect consumers. That way, you know that if it says "Microsoft" or "Sony" or "Intel", o
If I sell or give you a genuine boxed copy of Microsoft Windows(tm), what law am I breaking?
Possibly none. Microsoft might have a different opinion on the matter.
But these guys aren't selling you a genuine boxed copy of the Google apps. They're selling you unlicensed copies which carry the Google trade dress, including logos and other collateral.
You say, "So what? They're the same apps" -- which is exactly why trademark exists in the first place. Because it has registered trademarks, only Google is permitted to conduct trade using those marks. It doesn't matter if the binaries are bit-for-bit iden
Trademarks have nothing to do with distribution, or at least not in the way you think.
If I buy a Nike T-Shirt. It has a Nike logo on it. If I sell it to you, did I just commit trademark infringement? No? Why not?
I can write Gmail, Gmail, Gmail all day long and Google can't sue me so long as I'm referring to Google's product and I'm not using it to imply that I am the provider of or affiliated with Gmail or Google in any way.
Now if the binaries are modified in anyway, they are NOT Gmail and Google Maps an
You buy Nike T-Shirts then print some slogan on them and then either sell them or give them away. What you've done is now made it appear the slogan is from Nike (or it's reasonable to assume people could be confused by it.)
Yes, this is a problem, isn't it.
Huh?
So I buy a Chevy car, put a "Breasts Not Bombs" bumper sticker on it, then either sell the car or give it away. According to you, what I've just done is made it appear the slogan is from Chevy, or it's reasonable to assume people could be confused by i
I think google needs to review its own corporate philosophy again. The "Ten things we know to be true" page apparently is just a sort-of loose guide line and not a hard list of rules: http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/tenthings.html/ [google.com] Rules 1, 4 & 6 especially appear to be mere lip-service for us puny consumers to follow, not really applicable to google. I also again reiterate my belief, as mistaken it may be, that in a lot of these cases its possible that the retained corporate lawyer stable is justifying its existence by exercising corporate rights that may actually not be in the best interest of the corp.
If Cyanogen is "passing around Google's closed-source apps like Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail", then google has every right, even a responsibility, to stop it. It does not matter that it only runs on google authorized hardware, Cyanogen has not been given the right to distribute the software. What happens if Cyanogen, or some other person, decided to modify the Talk so that all numbers dialed were reported to third party advertisers? Not only would google lose their share of the advertising dollars, but I am sure most would hold google liable. Same thing if maps intentionally lead people to drive off a cliff. Right holders have a obligation to control distribution, and I don't trust those who don't control distribution.
Leaving this issue aside, it does seem that Android is not the open savior that every thought it might be. Given that for a cell phone to work it must have towers, and that the towers are controlled by private enterprise in search of profit, and that large firms tend to sue each other as part of the competitive process, any completely open phone is unlikely to thrive in the marketplace. If google were no a commodity vendor, then I would say that an open phone might work. But given they want tens of millions of customers, there is going to be a compromise of open software and control.
Seems to me that the most reasonable compromise, for all involved, is for Google to allow redistribution without modification of their closed source software. Yes, Google has the legal right to make cyanogen stop distributing, but how does that benefit Google? Lots of 'proprietary' software are distributed as.zip or.exe files which the license allows you to make verbatim copies of. This is slightly different, because the software is incorporated as part of a ROM image, but as long as the software inside the ROM image isn't modified, Google should just let him distribute. He's not hurting them in any real way.
Stop distributing those apps in the ROM! Add an app to retrieve them from the original (backup) version of the phone.
SafeTex [imarvintpa.com]: Copying copyrighted textures from original Quake to custom commercial levels without incident. IE Don't distribute what's already there.
Does anyone really believe that Google is the "do no evil" company that it used to be, pre-IPO? It has become just as suspect as any big company. The bigger problem is that people don't even see Google for what it is. It is like MS all over again.
Google is sending a C&D because someone is distributing closed-source Google apps (like GMail, Google Maps, etc...) without a license.
This is why I want a phone that runs only Free Software in the base install. If I know that the base functionality is open and free, that means I can take that base set of software and modify it and distribute it to other people without worry of getting a C&D letter like this one.
Free Software licenses are a great way to CYA. Sure, they do a number of other things for you as well, and they aren't always the best at dealing with software patents, but they CYA a lot more than most proprietary licenses I've seen.
This is why I'm so excited for the N900. I'm sure the base install has some proprietary stuff, but...
Bingo!
I think that the n900 is going to have the same issue as we have with Android phones and the Pam Pre: There's proprietary software in the base install.
If the only proprietary software on the device is games or some non-essential application, then that's not going to be a problem. Someone can just make a replacement image for the device with those non-free apps removed. But if bits of the OS or base applications like SMS, calendaring, email, etc... are under a proprietary license, that might be a big b
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday September 25, @11:50AM (#29541003)
Cyanogen has been modding for awhile without any trouble from Google. Recently he released a rom that was basically android 1.6 in full, including the new improved version of android market, way before the rest of android users will get it. I think thats what Google is mostly bent out of shape about, hopefully they can reach some sort of peaceful agreement that allows cyanogen to keep modding. His roms are great and make the g1 a powerful device.
Bottom line most developers are going to care less about why google is sending lawyers after their community than the fact that they may have to deal with that crap if they develop for Android. Since there are groups producing similar mods to Windows Mobile firmwre, this Cease and Desist has the potential to make the open source mod community around android less vibrant than the community around the Microsoft's closed source OS. Which is a real shame.
If Google doesn't do some rapid damage control they're liable to find their development community moving over to other Open Source phone OSes that don't send lawyers after their development community.
Developers should care about why Google is doing this. How would you feel if people were distributing your apps or project without a license possibly in violation of that license? It's irresponsible of those developers not to abide by the licensing agreements. If these developers were distributing GPL apps without a license I'm pretty sure the FSF would be breathing down their necks too. It's a matter of respect and professionalism. Those developers are out of line.
Sure, developers should care... And Google probably has the law on its side..
But maybe Google should work this out instead of sending a C&D...
It seams to me as Google is trying to control how their apps are experienced kind of like Apple does it... And that doesn't really encourage community participation...
Anyway, I guess that settles it for me... I'm not buying an Android phone anytime soon...:)
It is illegal to distribute closed source apps without the license. It doesn't matter if you think what you are doing is not for profit or doing any 'harm'. Google is even required by law to enforce its copyright. The answer is not to complain about google doing evil or about how it is 'harmless' to use this software illegally but to make free software clones of the apps and avoid the legal non-sense altogether. And in most cases, you don't even need to make them... they are already done.
This is something that must be understood. Some "alternative" GNU/Linux distros out there love to include things like Skype and flash without any license. It is illegal doing so, and the reason most of the major distros don't do it. (Some of them don't do it because they don't like proprietary software, but most of them really do it just to avoid the copyright infrigement).
"20:03] google just cease and desisted me [20:15] cyanogenmod is probably going to be dead [20:16] i'm opening a dialogue with them [20:20] no they are talking specifically about the closed-source google apps [20:20] and how i am not licensed to distribute them [20:20] my argument is that i only develop for google-experience devices which are already licensed for these apps [20:20] so we'll see what they say [20:20] maybe we can work something out [20:24] maps, market, talk, gmail, youtube"20:03] google just cease and desisted me [20:15] cyanogenmod is probably going to be dead [20:16] i'm opening a dialogue with them [20:20] no they are talking specifically about the closed-source google apps [20:20] and how i am not licensed to distribute them [20:20] my argument is that i only develop for google-experience devices which are already licensed for these apps [20:20] so we'll see what they say [20:20] maybe we can work something out [20:24] maps, market, talk, gmail, youtube"
Probably he will have to drop those apps. This will make loading Cyanogen a little more difficult. Next, will Google prevent him from using those apps to test his distro, or will they make it impossible to run them under his ROMs?
Somehow, this is beginning to look like the end of Google the Nice. The beginning of the open Google the Evil.
Kinda sad, but now that Android is important, the game changes.
This isn't any different from the Second Life client where third party packagers have to leave out certain closed-source components that Linden Lab uses. When you use them, you take the SL client downloaded from Linden Lab, and add the updated open source components. Most open source clients include an installer now that copies the closed source components from your original SL directory into the new application.
Hmm. The earlier poster who mentioned whether this was a 'Googley' reaction reminded me suddenly. One of the very first million-selling songs (sheet music) was a song written by Billy Rose in the 1920's, called "Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googly eyes" [wikipedia.org], inspired by the Barney Google comic strip. (I thought it was the other way round, but never mind.)
This raises an interesting question - is Google's name in violation of the trademark of the Barney Google / Snuffy Smith comic strip, or the song?
According to the afore-mentioned Wikipedia article, there is arguably an indirect connection (through the mathematical googol) between the two Googles - if nothing else it's an interesting case of a word's spelling tending to gravitate toward a common predictable form - or something.
At least on the Rogers Dream (Canadian version of the G1) Cyanogen and similar are the ONLY way to run the phone well..
With the stock firmware timestamps are broken (as in text messages showing up in the wrong time zone, making the sorting of a conversation all wrong) and Performance is miserable. By contrast Cyanogenmod more than solves these problems, transforming it from a badly flawed phone that makes Android look really BAD, to an excellent that makes android look great. I'm not exaggerating when I say that, given what a poor job rogers has done resolving serious bugs like the timestamp one, I would never buy another android phone from Rogers, if I were going to be stuck using the stock firmware. However, as long as the modder community remains in play, I am a happy user who would be happy to buy a new device that came out.
I guess my point is, if google starts to shutdown the modders, they really are actually pushing customers (well, at least one) away.
His latest ROM has the new market app which isn't only closed-source, but it's unreleased closed source. Google doesn't want their stuff going into the wild until they say so.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I don't know what Google is like, but there are some tech companies where the lawyers are itchin' to sue everybody in sight and they get held back by more reasoned heads until some line is crossed. IP problems vs. operational problems could be such a line - given how engineer-heavy Google is, I can see a culture that would have decided that trust among engineers was lost with the decision to distribute a private beta of a client/server app. Since Google isn't want to sue e
Umm, Linux is the same way, developers have the freedom to write a closed source app for it. Which is good. Otherwise I wouldn't have matlab on linux. Which is an industry standard for many engineering applications. So this is really not too news worthy, Google has closed source apps and open source apps. Just because a company has some OSS apps, doesn't mean they can't defend the rest of their apps.
Hey, you could at least bother to read the RFC [ietf.org] before asking such a pointless question! RFC 2795 handles such things transparently. Under the hood you'd see:
BoBoSIM> SEND FOOD
SanDiego> ACCEPT
BoBoSIM> SEND MEDICINE
SanDiego> DELAY
BoBoSIM> SEND VETERINARIAN
Did you read the article? It clearly says that its todo with shipping google's closed apps like gmail/gmaps/etc. The OS is free but much of the software is not. Personally it seams pretty dumb to stop people handing out your free apps, but it is definitely within their rights.
I thought Android was supposed to be Free Software / Open Source Software?
The original copyright holder is not bound by the GPL as long as they are either the only contributor, have all copyrights assigned before a change is accepted or has agreement from all holders of copyright. The GPL only applies to other people who are not the original authors. But this is not about open source code but rather coded source google apps distributed with android.
Neither do fiat currencies. They all end up crumbling in exactly the same way.
Did your history book also mention that?
So, since ALL systems of humanity eventually fail, wouldnt it be more important to look at the quality of life that exists under these systems for the brief periods that they exist?
Wrong end. When you're talking about something that needs to use a network to be useful, you've got to start at the network. The device is the LEAST important part. As long as the phone company gets to say what does or does not run on their network the devices will do what they need to meet those requirements.
It's kind of funny actually - Apple releases a closed phone but doesn't sick the lawyers on any of the hackers. Google releases an "open" phone but does sick the lawyers on the hackers.
What's even more funny is that Microsoft, a company hardly synonymous with openness, has long tolerated ROM modders doing the exact same thing on Windows Mobile. Heck, it's far more extreme, as ROM modders on Windows Mobile have been building ROMs off of unreleased versions of WinMo 6.5.1 and including things like Microsoft Office for WinMo in its entirety, and Microsoft hasn't complained.
Meanwhile, the self-annointed Do-No-Evil Google with its open Android system is releasing the lawyers.
When both Apple and Microsoft are more open than you are, even only about a certain aspect of your product, that's not a good sign. It's sad, but Windows Mobile is really the most open mainstream mobile OS out there these days.
License missing (Score:5, Informative)
Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail and so on require a license to distribute them. Cyanogen doesn't have one. Google C&D's because of that. Case closed.
Re:License missing (Score:5, Interesting)
There must be some reason why Google would risk upsetting a group made up, more or less, of self-selected enthusiasts of Android and its continued development, in exchange for no obvious money. Is Google confident enough in the value of its apps that it sees those Google specific apps as a future distinguishing feature for Android phones, one that OEMs will pay good money for? Are potential telco partners pissed that Cyanogen is something eminently worth rooting your handset for?
The existence of their legal right is uncontroversial; but I find their potential motives a bit baffling.
Parent
Re:License missing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty clear that Google goes way out of its way to provide APIs and guidance on using its stuff as a third party, so I suspect that there's specifics in this C&D that aren't just "you used our service." Specifically, if they were re-packaging Google's logos or the like, then there's real copyright concerns there.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing it's like having a pickup game of softball at your local municipal field, and you get busted. Why? You need a permit. It's free and easy to get, but you still need to get it.
Google's saying "We ask everybody else to play by these rules, which aren't even onerous, so you need to as well."
Re:License missing (Score:5, Funny)
I can't RTFM right now - slashdotted - but the TOS for using Google Maps for example is very explicit and very limited. (You can only use Google Maps from within browser, and you cannot cache the images.) Google doesn't necessarily own the data; they have licensing agreements with data providers. So Google has to uphold its agreement with the data providers.
While I personally have abandonded using Google Maps for my project because of the license - something I find frustrating and disappointing - it is, after all, the agreeement Google must live by and enforce.
Parent
Re:License missing (Score:5, Informative)
Like the parent said, that only applies to trademarks and not to copyright.
Parent
Re:License missing (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean trademarks like Gmail(tm) and the Google(tm) logo? Which are almost certainly being distributed as part of those apps?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean trademarks like Gmail(tm) and the Google(tm) logo? Which are almost certainly being distributed as part of those apps?
And, so what?
If I sell or give you a genuine boxed copy of Microsoft Windows(tm), what law am I breaking? And, if I choose to advertise the fact that I am selling that same product and want to use the trademarked name in my advertisement, Microsoft has no grounds to stop me. They can force me to specifically state that the name is trademarked by them, but that's all.
Trademark exists not to protect businesses, but to protect consumers. That way, you know that if it says "Microsoft" or "Sony" or "Intel", o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I sell or give you a genuine boxed copy of Microsoft Windows(tm), what law am I breaking?
Possibly none. Microsoft might have a different opinion on the matter.
But these guys aren't selling you a genuine boxed copy of the Google apps. They're selling you unlicensed copies which carry the Google trade dress, including logos and other collateral.
You say, "So what? They're the same apps" -- which is exactly why trademark exists in the first place. Because it has registered trademarks, only Google is permitted to conduct trade using those marks. It doesn't matter if the binaries are bit-for-bit iden
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The word you're looking for is Panaphonics [tumblr.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trademarks have nothing to do with distribution, or at least not in the way you think.
If I buy a Nike T-Shirt. It has a Nike logo on it. If I sell it to you, did I just commit trademark infringement? No? Why not?
I can write Gmail, Gmail, Gmail all day long and Google can't sue me so long as I'm referring to Google's product and I'm not using it to imply that I am the provider of or affiliated with Gmail or Google in any way.
Now if the binaries are modified in anyway, they are NOT Gmail and Google Maps an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh?
So I buy a Chevy car, put a "Breasts Not Bombs" bumper sticker on it, then either sell the car or give it away. According to you, what I've just done is made it appear the slogan is from Chevy, or it's reasonable to assume people could be confused by i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google is evil (Score:3, Insightful)
"Case closed."
Indeed. They are evil.
Re:License missing (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Le Shocque! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google a giant company, not your BFF.
Film at 11.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're joking, but that may come as a surprise to a lot of people.
Re:Le Shocque! (Score:5, Interesting)
I think google needs to review its own corporate philosophy again. The "Ten things we know to be true" page apparently is just a sort-of loose guide line and not a hard list of rules:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/tenthings.html/ [google.com]
Rules 1, 4 & 6 especially appear to be mere lip-service for us puny consumers to follow, not really applicable to google. I also again reiterate my belief, as mistaken it may be, that in a lot of these cases its possible that the retained corporate lawyer stable is justifying its existence by exercising corporate rights that may actually not be in the best interest of the corp.
Parent
Re:Le Shocque! (Score:4, Funny)
Google a giant company, not your BFF.
That's ok, I already have Facebook as my BFF.
Parent
What is confusing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Leaving this issue aside, it does seem that Android is not the open savior that every thought it might be. Given that for a cell phone to work it must have towers, and that the towers are controlled by private enterprise in search of profit, and that large firms tend to sue each other as part of the competitive process, any completely open phone is unlikely to thrive in the marketplace. If google were no a commodity vendor, then I would say that an open phone might work. But given they want tens of millions of customers, there is going to be a compromise of open software and control.
Are they actually modified? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that the most reasonable compromise, for all involved, is for Google to allow redistribution without modification of their closed source software. Yes, Google has the legal right to make cyanogen stop distributing, but how does that benefit Google? Lots of 'proprietary' software are distributed as .zip or .exe files which the license allows you to make verbatim copies of. This is slightly different, because the software is incorporated as part of a ROM image, but as long as the software inside the ROM image isn't modified, Google should just let him distribute. He's not hurting them in any real way.
Parent
Simplish solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop distributing those apps in the ROM!
Add an app to retrieve them from the original (backup) version of the phone.
SafeTex [imarvintpa.com]: Copying copyrighted textures from original Quake to custom commercial levels without incident. IE Don't distribute what's already there.
IMarv
say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
"not of the high Googley' caliber"
Does anyone really believe that Google is the "do no evil" company that it used to be, pre-IPO? It has become just as suspect as any big company. The bigger problem is that people don't even see Google for what it is. It is like MS all over again.
OK. Just my $.02 worth, I guess
Re:say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
They try, they don't always succeed, sometimes they fail miserably, but they do try. Which is better than 99% of the companies out there.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Does anyone really believe that Google is the "do no evil" company that it used to be, pre-IPO?"
No, I don't believe that, because they never said that
Their motto is "Don't be evil." There's a subtle, but I believe important, difference.
Proves the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is sending a C&D because someone is distributing closed-source Google apps (like GMail, Google Maps, etc...) without a license.
This is why I want a phone that runs only Free Software in the base install. If I know that the base functionality is open and free, that means I can take that base set of software and modify it and distribute it to other people without worry of getting a C&D letter like this one.
Free Software licenses are a great way to CYA. Sure, they do a number of other things for you as well, and they aren't always the best at dealing with software patents, but they CYA a lot more than most proprietary licenses I've seen.
So close... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why I'm so excited for the N900. I'm sure the base install has some proprietary stuff, but...
Bingo!
I think that the n900 is going to have the same issue as we have with Android phones and the Pam Pre: There's proprietary software in the base install.
If the only proprietary software on the device is games or some non-essential application, then that's not going to be a problem. Someone can just make a replacement image for the device with those non-free apps removed. But if bits of the OS or base applications like SMS, calendaring, email, etc... are under a proprietary license, that might be a big b
Heres my 2 cents (Score:4, Informative)
Cyanogen has been modding for awhile without any trouble from Google. Recently he released a rom that was basically android 1.6 in full, including the new improved version of android market, way before the rest of android users will get it. I think thats what Google is mostly bent out of shape about, hopefully they can reach some sort of peaceful agreement that allows cyanogen to keep modding. His roms are great and make the g1 a powerful device.
Lawyers against dev community == bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Bottom line most developers are going to care less about why google is sending lawyers after their community than the fact that they may have to deal with that crap if they develop for Android. Since there are groups producing similar mods to Windows Mobile firmwre, this Cease and Desist has the potential to make the open source mod community around android less vibrant than the community around the Microsoft's closed source OS. Which is a real shame.
If Google doesn't do some rapid damage control they're liable to find their development community moving over to other Open Source phone OSes that don't send lawyers after their development community.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Developers should care about why Google is doing this. How would you feel if people were distributing your apps or project without a license possibly in violation of that license? It's irresponsible of those developers not to abide by the licensing agreements. If these developers were distributing GPL apps without a license I'm pretty sure the FSF would be breathing down their necks too. It's a matter of respect and professionalism. Those developers are out of line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But maybe Google should work this out instead of sending a C&D...
It seams to me as Google is trying to control how their apps are experienced kind of like Apple does it... And that doesn't really encourage community participation...
Anyway, I guess that settles it for me... I'm not buying an Android phone anytime soon...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This has nothing to do with developing for Android. It has to do with illegally distributing somebody else's software for the Android.
Any developer too dim to realize the difference between those two, I don't think I'd want any software from anyways.
They were doing it the wrong way (Score:3, Insightful)
This is something that must be understood. Some "alternative" GNU/Linux distros out there love to include things like Skype and flash without any license. It is illegal doing so, and the reason most of the major distros don't do it. (Some of them don't do it because they don't like proprietary software, but most of them really do it just to avoid the copyright infrigement).
A few details (Score:5, Informative)
From TMONews [tmonews.com]:
"20:03] google just cease and desisted me
[20:15] cyanogenmod is probably going to be dead
[20:16] i'm opening a dialogue with them
[20:20] no they are talking specifically about the closed-source google apps
[20:20] and how i am not licensed to distribute them
[20:20] my argument is that i only develop for google-experience devices which are already licensed for these apps
[20:20] so we'll see what they say
[20:20] maybe we can work something out
[20:24] maps, market, talk, gmail, youtube"20:03] google just cease and desisted me
[20:15] cyanogenmod is probably going to be dead
[20:16] i'm opening a dialogue with them
[20:20] no they are talking specifically about the closed-source google apps
[20:20] and how i am not licensed to distribute them
[20:20] my argument is that i only develop for google-experience devices which are already licensed for these apps
[20:20] so we'll see what they say
[20:20] maybe we can work something out
[20:24] maps, market, talk, gmail, youtube"
Probably he will have to drop those apps. This will make loading Cyanogen a little more difficult. Next, will Google prevent him from using those apps to test his distro, or will they make it impossible to run them under his ROMs?
Somehow, this is beginning to look like the end of Google the Nice. The beginning of the open Google the Evil.
Kinda sad, but now that Android is important, the game changes.
Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
So don't distribute those apps... (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't any different from the Second Life client where third party packagers have to leave out certain closed-source components that Linden Lab uses. When you use them, you take the SL client downloaded from Linden Lab, and add the updated open source components. Most open source clients include an installer now that copies the closed source components from your original SL directory into the new application.
"Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googley eyes" (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm. The earlier poster who mentioned whether this was a 'Googley' reaction reminded me suddenly. One of the very first million-selling songs (sheet music) was a song written by Billy Rose in the 1920's, called "Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googly eyes" [wikipedia.org], inspired by the Barney Google comic strip. (I thought it was the other way round, but never mind.)
This raises an interesting question - is Google's name in violation of the trademark of the Barney Google / Snuffy Smith comic strip, or the song?
According to the afore-mentioned Wikipedia article, there is arguably an indirect connection (through the mathematical googol) between the two Googles - if nothing else it's an interesting case of a word's spelling tending to gravitate toward a common predictable form - or something.
Hmmm.
This is a serious problem (Score:5, Informative)
At least on the Rogers Dream (Canadian version of the G1) Cyanogen and similar are the ONLY way to run the phone well..
With the stock firmware timestamps are broken (as in text messages showing up in the wrong time zone, making the sorting of a conversation all wrong) and Performance is miserable.
By contrast Cyanogenmod more than solves these problems, transforming it from a badly flawed phone that makes Android look really BAD, to an excellent that makes android look great.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that, given what a poor job rogers has done resolving serious bugs like the timestamp one, I would never buy another android phone from Rogers, if I were going to be stuck using the stock firmware. However, as long as the modder community remains in play, I am a happy user who would be happy to buy a new device that came out.
I guess my point is, if google starts to shutdown the modders, they really are actually pushing customers (well, at least one) away.
It's because of the Market app (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I don't know what Google is like, but there are some tech companies where the lawyers are itchin' to sue everybody in sight and they get held back by more reasoned heads until some line is crossed. IP problems vs. operational problems could be such a line - given how engineer-heavy Google is, I can see a culture that would have decided that trust among engineers was lost with the decision to distribute a private beta of a client/server app. Since Google isn't want to sue e
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Android itself is, but of course some software written for it can be closed or even, hold your breath, commercial.
Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail apps are closed software.
And before someone jumps on the "but I want the whole thing to be open!!", its more open when developers have choices.
Re:GPL Violation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait. Do monkeys live for 1000 years?
Hey, you could at least bother to read the RFC [ietf.org] before asking such a pointless question! RFC 2795 handles such things transparently. Under the hood you'd see:
BoBoSIM> SEND FOOD
SanDiego> ACCEPT
BoBoSIM> SEND MEDICINE
SanDiego> DELAY
BoBoSIM> SEND VETERINARIAN
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
THAT doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read the article? It clearly says that its todo with shipping google's closed apps like gmail/gmaps/etc. The OS is free but much of the software is not. Personally it seams pretty dumb to stop people handing out your free apps, but it is definitely within their rights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought Android was supposed to be Free Software / Open Source Software?
The original copyright holder is not bound by the GPL as long as they are either the only contributor, have all copyrights assigned before a change is accepted or has agreement from all holders of copyright. The GPL only applies to other people who are not the original authors. But this is not about open source code but rather coded source google apps distributed with android.
Re:Capitalism means crisis (Score:5, Insightful)
Did your history book also mention that?
So, since ALL systems of humanity eventually fail, wouldnt it be more important to look at the quality of life that exists under these systems for the brief periods that they exist?
Parent
Re:Capitalism means crisis (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like China?
Parent
Re:Do no evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong end. When you're talking about something that needs to use a network to be useful, you've got to start at the network. The device is the LEAST important part. As long as the phone company gets to say what does or does not run on their network the devices will do what they need to meet those requirements.
It's kind of funny actually - Apple releases a closed phone but doesn't sick the lawyers on any of the hackers. Google releases an "open" phone but does sick the lawyers on the hackers.
Parent
Re:Do no evil? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's even more funny is that Microsoft, a company hardly synonymous with openness, has long tolerated ROM modders doing the exact same thing on Windows Mobile. Heck, it's far more extreme, as ROM modders on Windows Mobile have been building ROMs off of unreleased versions of WinMo 6.5.1 and including things like Microsoft Office for WinMo in its entirety, and Microsoft hasn't complained.
Meanwhile, the self-annointed Do-No-Evil Google with its open Android system is releasing the lawyers.
When both Apple and Microsoft are more open than you are, even only about a certain aspect of your product, that's not a good sign. It's sad, but Windows Mobile is really the most open mainstream mobile OS out there these days.
Parent