Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Serves a Cease-and-Desist On Android Modder

Posted by kdawson on from the doubleplus-ungoogly dept.

Several readers sent in word that Google has served a Cease and Desist order to Cyanogen, one of the most prolific Android modders: his CyanogenMod is enjoyed by 30,000 users. The move is puzzling. Gizmodo wonders what Google's game is, and Lauren Weinstein calls the move "not of the high 'Googley' caliber" that one would expect of the company.

57 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. License missing by sopssa · · 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.

    1. Re:License missing by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:License missing by BlueBlade · · Score: 4, Informative

      Like the parent said, that only applies to trademarks and not to copyright.

      --
      Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    3. Re:License missing by ajs · · Score: 4, 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.

    4. Re:License missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's only for trademarks. Copyright and patents doesn't require defending hence why you see patent trolls wait until a product is well-entrentched before they sue them for "damages."

      I can understand Google's viewpoint on this. Assuming Cyanogen wants to continue to distribute the programs, they can always just go through the proper channels first. Then they would have a stance if Google was being slow or rejected them. It's really an issue of google protecting themselves. They probably want to avoid legal hassles that involve 3rd party distributors (where the binaries could be modified without google's knowledge or infected with a virus unintentionally or other things).

    5. Re:License missing by R2.0 · · 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."

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    6. Re:License missing by Chelloveck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like the parent said, that only applies to trademarks and not to copyright.

      You mean trademarks like Gmail(tm) and the Google(tm) logo? Which are almost certainly being distributed as part of those apps?

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    7. Re:License missing by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, you spelled "Apple" wrong.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    8. Re:License missing by cptdondo · · Score: 4, 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.

    9. Re:License missing by nabsltd · · Score: 2, 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", or uses similar packaging, you won't be getting a product from some other company (like "Sorny"). And, this is the crux of why trademark has to be defended or else it is lost.

    10. Re:License missing by morgan_greywolf · · 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 and Google Docs. At that point, I'm trying to pass off a derivative work as Gmail or Google Maps. Now I'm infringing on copyrights and trademarks!

      --
      My blog
    11. Re:License missing by wrygrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i understand the bind that google/android is up against, and think it is terrible both in principle and in personal impact.

      in order to limit copy-access to android app executables, android depends on sequestering apps in phone storage. while most app producers don't care about limiting access to their executables (apk's), some commercial vendors do. (some common evidence of this is the way that most apps are available for copying by android backup programs like MyBackup Pro, but some aren't.) of course, root access defeats this sequestering - and, in fact, the biggest performance advantage on machines like my G1 is due to jiggering things, with symlinks, etc, so that app storage (as well as some resource cache storage) is physically on the SD card.

      the terrible bind is that, on phones like the G1, the phone-storage RAM (192 MB) is a critical resource shared across operational and storage functions, so that the phone works terribly if you have too many apps. and "too many", for a phone that's supposed to be very multi-purpose and extensible, is disturbingly few. it really is a fatal flaw - until i upgraded to cyanogen's mod, things like scrolling would fail to respond most of the time, returning to the home screen or starting an app could take on the order of minutes, etc. and this after i removed a lot of apps, including ones that were occasionally crucial. after upgrading to cyanogen the device works like an, um, dream. i can run everything i need, and more, and the phone is sliced-bread-caliber useful with quick, smooth responsiveness. happy dance!-) now they're bringing down the boot on my savior. darn.

      it seems obvious to me that google can't afford to allow undermining of their key provision for proprietary vendors who don't want their .apk's loose in the wild. it's a platform-policy agreement they made. it seems equally obvious to me that this is a damn shame - a profound architectural restriction solely for the purpose of a few overly restrictive vendors, who also happen to be some of the big vendors.

      (from many comments, elsewhere, about similar relief from upgrading to cyanogen, i see that my experience with the G1 is not unusual. going back to the standard android release is not an option, so figure i'll stick with my cyanogen install until my contract is up, sometime early next year, and by then there should be other android devices with a physical keyboard and without the cripplingly insufficient amount of RAM. i truly am sad that google is in this bind, and feel that the current arrangement for securing apk's is profoundly flawed, and finding a different approach deserves substantial effort.)

      ken

      --
      everything leaks
    12. Re:License missing by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The word you're looking for is Panaphonics.

    13. Re:License missing by multisync · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 it.

      Or I buy a Dell Laptop, peel off the "Ready for Vista" sticker and put a Tux sticker on it, sell it to someone. Dell's going to stop me because their Trade Mark is on it? I don't think so.

      Even if Nike, Chevy or Dell could make the case that I was making it appear they endorsed the slogan, Trade Mark law wouldn't be relevant. Trade Mark law prevents me from selling a knock-off with someone's Trade Mark, or a confusingly similar mark, on it. What you're talking about is something entirely different, and frankly I don't think the manufacturer would have much say in the matter.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    14. Re:License missing by PCM2 · · Score: 2, 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 identical. Google gets to say whether the apps are "authentic" or not.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    15. Re:License missing by dangitman · · Score: 2, Informative

      WTF? How do they pronounce it in other English speaking countries? I've heard plenty of British people say those words, and they still rhyme.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  2. Le Shocque! by Rydia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google a giant company, not your BFF.

    Film at 11.

    1. Re:Le Shocque! by Glendale2x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know you're joking, but that may come as a surprise to a lot of people.

      --
      this is my sig
    2. Re:Le Shocque! by Killer+Orca · · Score: 3, Funny

      Google a giant company, not your BFF.

      That's ok, I already have Facebook as my BFF.

    3. Re:Le Shocque! by interval1066 · · Score: 4, 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/
      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.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    4. Re:Le Shocque! by zapakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Google's defense, they do make their opt-out process as painless as they can.

  3. Re:GPL Violation? by sopssa · · 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.

  4. Re:GPL Violation? by RiotingPacifist · · 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.

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  5. What is confusing? by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  6. Simplish solution by IMarvinTPA · · 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: Copying copyrighted textures from original Quake to custom commercial levels without incident. IE Don't distribute what's already there.

    IMarv

    --
    Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
  7. say what? by macbeth66 · · 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

    1. Re:say what? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:say what? by R2.0 · · 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.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  8. Re:Capitalism means crisis by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

  9. Proves the point by Qubit · · Score: 4, 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.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  10. Heres my 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  11. Re:Do no evil? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, 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.

  12. Re:GPL Violation? by rjolley · · Score: 2, Informative

    "its more open when developers have choices."

    Not necessarily so for the user.

    That doesn't even make sense.

  13. Lawyers against dev community == bad idea by dwight_hubbard · · 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.

    1. Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea by rliden · · 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.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
    2. Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea by Mascot · · Score: 2, 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.

    3. Re:Lawyers against dev community == bad idea by jopsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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... :)

  14. Are they actually modified? by JSBiff · · Score: 4, 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.

  15. Re:GPL Violation? by daskinil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:GPL Violation? by Vexorian · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think you were meaning to reply the parent post.

    its more open when developers have choices.

    THAT doesn't make any sense.

    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  17. Re:GPL Violation? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the user cares about is data. If I can switch from your mail app to my mail app without losing my data, the system is open. However, if the developer has the choice of whatever mail format it wants, it's unlikely that I can transfer my data without issue. Thus, choice for the developer does not equal choice for the user.

  18. They were doing it the wrong way by Vexorian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  19. A few details by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TMONews:

    "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.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  20. Re:Capitalism means crisis by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean like China?

  21. Solution by geirt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google, please hire Cyanogen. He is clever!

    --

    RFC1925
  22. So close... by Qubit · · Score: 2, 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 block to using the phone with only Free Software.

    I'm hopeful about the n900, but I'm not holding my breath.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  23. So don't distribute those apps... by argent · · Score: 3, 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.

  24. Openness by Estragib · · Score: 2, Interesting

    its more open when developers have choices.

    All the user cares about is data.

    This just isn't true. I have to invest quite some time to familiarize myself with an application and set my preferences, expecting to be able to use it in the future. With closed software, I never know if can do just that. A closed application may change in a way that makes new versions unusable for me at any time. What's worse, closed source locks me in, forcing me to eat all the little nuisances they decide to inflict upon me.

    It might be a decision to abandon certain functionality (not supporting a certain file format any longer, or dropping a lesser used feature to concentrate on a more popular one), it might be a matter of trust (changes in license or privacy agreement; a BitTorrent client getting sold to a company connected to copyright holders or an email client to a company known for data mining), it might be a matter of price (formerly free applications going commercial), it might just be the ever-so-popular dumbing down of the user interface.

    My problem is that I can't just stop updating it now, because I depend on bug fixes. In the worst case I need security fixes to keep my system safe at all.

    With FOSS-software I would fork from the version that has the functionality I need, trust or can use efficiently, and just keep up with any holes as they appear. I can't do any of that with closed software, effectively barring me from using the app any longer and wasting the time I invested in the application in the first place.

    A prominent example of this is uTorrent. When they were sold, a lot of people, me included, would have liked to keep current functionality (it was fairly sufficient). To keep using the old version, though, is to keep any security holes that were discovered in the meantime wide open. I'm sure other people remember a lot of other examples.

    I even wondered about this when I started using uTorrent but decided, nah, that guy seems ok, I think I can risk it. I don't think I will make that mistake again. I like to be in control of my applications, not the other way around.

  25. Re:GPL Violation? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  26. "Barney Google, with the Goo-goo-googley eyes" by garyebickford · · Score: 2, 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" , 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.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  27. This is a serious problem by hidden · · Score: 4, 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.

  28. Cyanogen builds without the Google Apps by azdio · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I welcome versions of Cyanogen without the google applications.

  29. Re:Do no evil? by manekineko2 · · Score: 4, 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.

  30. Google is evil by Snaller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Case closed."

    Indeed. They are evil.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  31. Re:GPL Violation? by lgw · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, wait. Do monkeys live for 1000 years?

    Hey, you could at least bother to read the RFC 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
                SanDiego> REFUSE
                BoBoSIM> SEND VETERINARIAN
                SanDiego> REFUSE
                BoBoSIM> NOTIFY NORESPONSE
                SanDiego> ACCEPT
                BoBoSIM> NOTIFY DEAD
                SanDiego> ACCEPT
                BoBoSIM> REPLACE MONKEY
                SanDiego> ACCEPT

    But the ZOO abstracts all that so you don't have to care.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  32. It's because of the Market app by Orange+Crush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's because of the Market app by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, 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 everybody in sight, my speculation is that something like this was going on. Or maybe this will define a bright line in their descent into Evil - we'll see.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)