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

[Rae Yip]

The key phrase is "Except to the extent required by applicable third
party licenses". The SDK might not be wholely composed of open source
software, and even if it were, there are cryptographic keys and
possibly other IP in firmware and other binaries that Google would
want to protect.

This doesn't mean that Android isn't mostly open source. The existence
of projects like CyanogenMod is proof of that.

-Rae.

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Tom Emerson <starman9x at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:37 PM, John E. Kreznar <jek at ininx.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Clause 3.3 there is immediately followed by
>>
>>   3.4 Use, reproduction and distribution of components of the SDK
>>   licensed under an open source software license are governed solely
>>   by the terms of that open source software license and not this
>>   License Agreement.
>>
>> How can clauses 3.3 and 3.4 be reconciled?  Can we assume from the
>> project name ("Android Open Source Project") that everything here is
>> open source?  Then why is the reverse engineering clause in there at
>> all?
>
> lazy lawyers and boilerplate?
>