[SGVLUG] This is the droid you've been writing for...

[John E. Kreznar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In a message purporting to be from Matthew Campbell
<dvdmatt at gmail.com> but lacking a digital signature, it is written

> I will cover:
> Android programming overview.
> Installing the development environment (Eclipse 3.5.2), the Android
> SDK and the Eclipse ADT development tools.

> ... please download and install the development software before the
> meeting.

Is it still the case that reading ("reverse engineering") of the SDK
is forbidden by the terms?

It used to be that one would have to agree as follows [1].

   3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party
   licenses, you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify,
   adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or
   create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK.  Except
   to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may
   not load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other
   hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the
   SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device
   incorporating a part of the SDK.

How can this be reconciled with open source principles?  How can an
open source advocate accept an SDK on these terms?

As a Linux derivative, Android is bringing open source to a wider
audience than anything before.  It would be a shame if this residual
taint of secret software cannot be eliminated.

[1] http://developer.android.com/sdk/terms_body.html

- -- 
 John E. Kreznar jek at ininx.com 9F1148454619A5F08550 705961A47CC541AFEF13
 ...who won't use software he's forbidden to read ("reverse engineer").

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iEYEARECAAYFAk0rJGYACgkQYaR8xUGv7xP82ACggqHR1vbtgnLRb1J3JWNDyYzS
7l4AnAo5cbwHLB58p8XnaD01OgLs4+fk
=F/SU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----