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

[Matthew Campbell]

P.S.  It will be hard to follow along through the workshop if you
don't have the development environment.  At the end of the evening you
will have a new phone loaded on your Android device and be ready to go
hog wild!

Matt

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Matthew Campbell <dvdmatt at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning everyone,
>
> So have you loaded the environment on your laptop for tonight's
> meeting?  If not we will be doing so, be advised it can be a long
> download as it's over 1G.  Do it at work if you can.
>
> Here are the instructions:
>
> http://sgvlug.org/ (half a page down)
>
> See you tonight!
>
> Matt
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Rae Yip <rae.yip at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>>>
>>
>