| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
It's much worse than thatIt's much worse than thatPosted Nov 13, 2007 19:09 UTC (Tue) by robilad (guest, #27163)In reply to: Maybe someday "mostly" free by mjr Parent article: Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)
What I find the worst part of the license is that Google reserves the right to revoke the license to use Android for anything from their competitors, if those competitors don't make Google money, or hurt Google financially. So, in practice, Android is only as open as it is in Google's exclusive business interest to allow 'openness'. Not even Microsoft went that far in their EULAs. Google is reserving for itself the right to crush any competition around Android. That would be like Microsoft reserving the right to declare Firefox illegal on Windows, if it starts taking away market share from them. It is most curious that those that Google would explicitly reserve that right for itself in the license.
(Log in to post comments)
It's much worse than that Posted Nov 14, 2007 3:30 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "Google reserves the right to revoke" Again, I think you're jumping to the worst-possible interpretation of this clause. I read that as lawyers saying "This is a pre-release thing. It's possible we'll decide not to create a real product based on it, if it turns out not to be economically viable. If so, you can't sue us for any money you might have spent developing products on it." I don't think you can read much of anything into the terms of a preview release - they're giving you a chance to play with it and comment on it, but it's not the product, it's not even a product, and it's not unreasonable that the terms covering the preview release would be tailored to the fact that it's not a product. [NOTE: I have no connection to Google and no specific insight into their motivation, though I do have a tendency to assume the best about people and corporations until proven otherwise...]
It's much worse than that Posted Nov 14, 2007 14:39 UTC (Wed) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link] It's not a regular clause in EULAs. It's not there by come copy-paste mistake by Google's lawyers. It has been deliberately crafted, weighed, and put in there to give Google exclusive control over 'open' platform. You don't introduce a gun in the first act, if you don't intend to use it in the third. If Google intended to play fair, it wouldn't need such terms.
It's much worse than that Posted Nov 14, 2007 17:41 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Again, it's a pre-release, explicitly under different license terms than the eventual SDK and platform. This particular clause appears to be specific to the pre-release; my own guess would be that it won't be in the eventual license, but my guess has no more significance than anyone elses...
It's much worse than that Posted Nov 15, 2007 3:00 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] Actually lawyers do introduce 'guns in the first act without using them in the third act' the time.. its one of the problems with real life versus fiction.
|
|
||||||||||||