so after posting an excerpt of my letter to Dan Morrill, the author of the absolutely idiotic statement regarding what they're doing, i received several PMs asking me to post the whole thing. It's so long it wont fit in a single post, so read it all. if you dont want to read a wall of text, stop here and go to a new thread.
Mr. Morrill,
First, I would like to bid you a good day, as I'm sure this letter is going to effect it. Yes, that is a bold statement to make at the onset, but writings such as these have a way of eating their way into your psyche and leaving a lasting impression that could very well sour your appetite at lunch time.
Perhaps I should introduce myself. My name is XXXXXXXXXXXXX, and I am an amateur developer on the Android platform. I am also a user of many of the custom Android builds that have come out since the release of the source development kit, including the build made by Steve "Cyanogen" Kondik. Ah, yes, now you see what this letter is going to be about.
So lets start with the basics. Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation that released a supposedly open-source platform onto the mobile device market. Now, I say mobile device as opposed to mobile phone, simply because there are products being released, such as the Zii EGG, which do not support telecommuniations, yet are still running on the Android platform. Now, in any reasonable programmers mind, the reason for making a platform open source, regardless of what the Public Relations people spin it as, is to alleviate some of the burden on the actual in-house development teams. The source code created by thousands of bright minds is doubtless going to yield a much stonger end result than that of a small development squad. Its simple mathematics. Well, that point alongside the fact that the original linux developers made no secret of their intentions by open-sourcing their operating system, which paved the way for Android many many years later.
In addition to that, all of the applications included in the "stock", or unmodified and officially released Android, builds are free. Any user with internet access can use any of these functions through the internet, with the blessings of your employer, free of charge. Yet, somehow, this has caused a sort of hiccup between your supposed idea of free development and that of the general public. Now, before you warp your mind into "this guy doesnt know what he's talking about" mode, think about the principles that your company was founded upon. You wanted to beat out the corporate giants and look out for the little guy. Oh yes, I've done my homework on Google over the years. The benevolent company trying to provide free services for the masses that the "evil-empire" corporations would deny free access to. Ironically enough, this letter is being written to you on Google Docs, another of your free services. Quite troublesome, it would seem.
And now, lest I digress further, I'll shift to the meat of the topic. In your statement regarding the cease and desist letter to Mr. Kondik, you claim that the sales of your free software to be used on mobile platforms being provided to the end user by custom developers for free would hurt the bottom line. Perhaps you should re-examine your own words. Free software being given to the masses by developers whom you claim to encourage is huring your profit share because you cannot sell the use of it to large corporations. Pardon me if I fail to understand the rationale behind such a contradictory and obviously ridiculous statement. But just so that you can understand my position on the matter, lets look at a related position. Google produces an internet browser, Chrome. Mozilla, a competing franchise, produces Firefox, their own browser. Developers for firefox have created applications which borrow on Google's proprietary code to access the functionality of the various features and programs. Are these developers charged for being able to include such features? No. Are these developers caused to halt their activities through threats of legal action for providing end users access to the capabilities that Google readily offers for free? No. So where is the disparity between allowing a competitor to do such things and tying the hands of developers of YOUR open source platform from doing the same?
Before I go further, let me give you a little background on myself to illuminate things. I used to work for XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. I worked in one of their call centers with well over a thousand people, almost a quarter of whom purchased the G1. More than 50% of those users had custom builds running on their phones. How would I know this? I personally installed it on over 300 and gave instructions to many more who wanted to do it themselves. This was one call center. But your apparent attitude on the situation makes it apparent that providing these people with custom software that includes the Google-based programs that were ORIGINALLY ON THE DEVICE AT PURCHASE, is illegal. I'm sorry sir, but that notion is preposterous. All of the Android-based mobile platforms on the market today include the software that caused you to send Mr. Kondik a cease and desist letter. This means that every single end user who purchased one of the devices paid that bottom line you spoke of. Any other rationale is impossible. Non-supporting devices will not run Android, and as such, the only way to use the device is to have purchased one. This brings us to the logical conclusion that those applications, such as GMail and Google Talk are PAID FOR. The situation is equitable to this situation: Joe purchases a computer from a major distributor, say Dell. Dell gives Joe a complimentary piece of free software (available on the Dell website) which updates his drivers on the Dell website, included with his purchase. Joe decides he doesnt particularly like the operating system on the computer, and installs an operating system more to his liking, that also happens to include the Dell software. But lo-and-behold, that free software shouldnt be free to Joe, even though he paid Dell's bottom line through his original computer purchase.
Your flaw is that you are obviously trying to "spin" the situation. Unfortunately, its a thin disguise and everyone can see through it, clear as crystal. These people that I speak of? Developers. The developers whom you claim to encourage. This brings me to my next point. Developers are essentially software hackers. They take the code from a program, rip it apart, improve on it, and then put it back out on the market for other developers to toy with. Perhaps, in your travels as a computer programmer, you have come across a copy of the much fabled "hacker's manifesto". Free access to data. That is what it was about at its core philosophy. You claimed to provide developers with that free access through Android, and then punish the people whom you claim to support.
Have you ever seen "The Devil's Advocate", Mr. Morrill? Al Pacino has an excellent line in which he is describing the way God imbued man with instinct, saying "Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow." Is this not what you've done here? You've given us, the developers, what you claim to be an open-source platform, written for mobile platforms that contain previously installed versions of the software, and also containing applications that each and every possible user would have purchased through buying the device on which they run. Then you tell us that it is illegal for us to modify any portion of that software which you see fit at any given point in time. Perhaps you should have just kept it closed-source, so that anything innovative wouldnt stir controvversy, as it would have truly been illegal. You give us a gift and then set the rules in opposition as it suits you.
Now, if I havent struck a nerve yet, perhaps I will in my own belief on the subject. You FEAR us. The android development team put out an initial platform. The developers, using the source code given to us, have turned out platforms on several different versions that utilize more functionality with greater performance, more flexibility and a wider range of features than ANYTHING that the official releases have even come close to. Mr. Kondik's releases are a prime example of this. He has created a version of the platform which utilizes every aspect of the platform infinitely better than the official releases. He has also included functionality from FUTURE releases, constantly and consistently improving on such, in a timeframe that should have your development team in absolute hysterics. That, sir, is what I believe this is about. Fear and shame. Never did you imagine that the Android development community would be able to surpass the Godly heights of the original development team, but we have and continually do so. It's his popularity that earned him the letter. He posed the biggest threat to your team by sharing a creative vision with anyone willing to install it that your team couldn't possibly compete with. But what about all of the other major developers? As of right now, I can count over a hundred different custom builds that include much of the same functionality and applications that Mr. Kondik's software includes. Are you going to attempt to stop them too?
(continued in post #2)
I assume you have been on the internet before. I assume you know that it spans the globe and has absolutely no limits or boundaries. It is freedom at its peak. Anyone, anywhere can express anything they want. The beautiful thing is that it enables people to communicate, and thereby collaborate in real-time. An internet community with thirty thousand people doesnt have to find a meeting room with enough chairs. This is the problem you're facing. You have attempted to cut the head off of a snake that you created. Unfortunately, on the internet, when you cut off the head of a snake, the body doesnt die. A thousand more heads spawn in its place, angrier, defiant and more intent on their purpose. Perhaps that should be a wake up call.
Mr. Morrill, I hope that in reading this letter, you have come to realize the gravity of your position. You have not only hurt yourselves, but angered an entire community, consisting of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. These are the people who write the applications that are sold on the Android Market. These are the people who have the time to spare to ensure that you still have a job by creating works of digital art, using the code that you claim to be "open source". Are you so obtuse as to believe that these people are going to slip silently into the night when their creativity is stifled by the whims of a multibillion dollar corporation? I think not, sir.
You simply cannot give freedom to the masses and then attempt to bind their hands, as you are attempting to do in this case. This has ended in cataclysmic failure for every culture and every authority that has attempted to do so in history. We live in a global society of ingenuity. People WILL find a way. The creative power of the developers of the android community will inevitably break you. History has shown ample evidence that a creative mind cannot be beaten down. No army of lawyers, no amount of cease and desist letters will stop the tide of creativity.
It's like a bear. The choice you had was to embrace this creativity and nurture it or to poke at it with a stick. Mr. Morrill, are you aware of the consequences of poking a bear with a stick? Some thought on that will bring you to an obvious, and quite unpleasant, conclusion.
Had you simply left well enough alone, the damage might have been minimal, but at this point you could be looking at a 2009 reenactment of the Boston Tea Party, with the Android platform playing the part of the British tea. The damage to your "bottom line" was so infinitesimally small as to equate to a mouse burping on a rush hour subway car in New York City. As stated previously, it is simply my belief that your development team was offended by the fact that amateur developers would put them to shame. Does Android come with a complimentary set of swim trunks? Perhaps you might invest. I hear Boston Harbor gets cold in the winter.
In closing, perhaps you should let the immortal words of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto echo through your mind as you contemplate the statements made in this letter:
"I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve".
Mr. Morrill, the giant is awake now, and his resolve is beyond your wildest dreams. I truly hope you are prepared to reap the consequences of what you have put in motion.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
amazing. your right they do fear us and they have woken a sleeping giant. what i dont get is the fact that these roms are making this phone better. as you said you gave over 300 people instructions how to do this at the call center. if anything these devs are helping google make sales, and google doesnt even have to make a better product. they make they same thing tht has been out since 0ct.22.2008 and the devs make it better. you sir are a god among men.
Wow, great letter, really looking forward to hearing the response to this - If you'd post it that is ;-)
You misspelt "purchased" in the eighth paragraph btw
yeah, this was the pre-spell-checked rough draft. the copy that i sent him was clean as a whistle.
Interesting letter. Not to mock you or anything, but it reminds me a lot of Keith Olbermann.
I am a RSA for TMO, and one of the major selling points was that Android was (is?) Open Source. That was a big deal to many customers.
I don't think the folks over a Google realize how tech savvy even the dumbest tech user is.
Had probably a 60 year old man come in the other day and he had put Hero on his G1 by himself.
(No offense to any oldsters.)
The world is changing, and Google just jumped in front of that subway train you mentioned.
this was truly a great letter. i would love to see the response (if you even get one) to this. i feel inspired to go do something now...
Android users, this is your call to arms.
Before you go and write long winded threatening letters to someone, maybe you should look into what you are writing about first. The person you are writing the letter to is an employee of a company that tells him what to do. I doubt after all of the help he has given developers and "hackers" in the Android irc channel, that he was just planning on striking everything down. My guess, and that of many others who know of him (havent chatted a lot, but he is social with us) would be that he was told to write that post. I dont want cyanogen roms to go away either, but I think you are going at it the wrong way. Hate the company, not the developers.
And after re-reading the post, you mention installing this on devices that already have it. The exact same arguement I used but you must also realize that an HTC hero does not get these Google Apps. It is an HTC branded phone and instead gets HTC branded apps. The "With Google" phones are the only ones that come with these apps pre-installed. Even then, apparently (I just found this out today) that your license to these apps does not allow you to copy them OFF of the device they came on. So that cut down another idea we had: copy the apps from the rom to SD, flash image, copy apps back.
Once again, I do not disagree with you or your anger, I just disagree with who you are directing it at.
irrelevant. "i was just doing what i was told" is never an excuse. it doesnt work in the justice system, and it doesnt work here. i could elaborate more, but i really dont want to invoke Godwin's Law this early in the conversation. he opened his mouth. he made himself the target. everyone is a nice and helpful person until they show their true colors.
perhaps its just me, but i'm one of those people that actually hold to my ideals. if i'm fighting for something and my boss tells me to do otherwise, i'm going to tell him to pack sand. if I get fired, i can always find a new job, but I can do so with my integrity intact. he had a choice. everyone always has a choice.
also, to your second post, the HTC branded phones arent the subject of controversy. the apps are "free". i quote free because it isnt true in this case. how is distributing the official Gmail app for free any different than accessing the same capabilities through another means? if I were to delete the official GMail app off of my phone entirely and instead access my gmail account through a browser, wouldnt that have the same effect on Google's "bottom line"? I'm still using the same service and not paying for it. Similarly, with the hero, if you have access to GMail through any email application or browser, are you not violating the same concept? You're still using the core of google's intellectual property for free. Their only real solution is to make the Google apps paid applications that everyone has access to if they want to shell out the cash, or simply drop the whole thing.
Are they going to stop people from creating custom GMail apps too? Cause if so, they've got a big fish to fry, cause they'd have to go after everyone who wrote a gmail plugin for firefox as well. any way you look at it, they're not going to stop the development community from going on, its simply too big.
If Dell gives you a "free" copy of vista on your laptop, and then you buy a compaq with linux installed on it. Does that mean you have the right to install your "free" vista on the compaq also? It was free! How about you write a new windows shell and you bundle your free windows vista with it. And you also throw in your free copy of Office that came with it.
I understand their point and I realize these examples are not EXACT enough to matter, but the point does. They give you the apps for A SPECIFIC device and they give them to you with rules. Rules that we do not like.
I feel that they instead of C&D'ing him, should have had a little sit down with him. Said "hey, we realize you are doing a lot of good for us by promoting our product and giving those who want more what they ask for when we cannot, but we have some rules for you. A, you must make every attempt you can to make sure the roms you distribute go on authorized "With Google" devices. B, not release stuff you do not have permission to release." This would allow google to control what he releases enough to fit within the rules (keeps carriers from saying "hey, he can release your apps without paying, why cant we?"). They would also benefit from the many thousands of users who flock to these custom roms but realize they are unusable in their bare forms.
And so you do not have to, I will be the first to pull the term nazi out of my hat in this one
I agree completely. As i said in the letter, they could have nurtured creativity (i.e. having a sit down with him and saying "hey look, we know that this is going to non-google devices and we cant have that, so make an attempt to not let it happen") or poke it with a stick. They chose the stick, and now they get to reap the backlash.
I also understand your initial examples, and while they do hold true for the circumstance, windows isnt lauded as being an open-source platform. In addition, i havent heard of microsoft going after people who create custom shells that utilize windows information, so long as they put a disclaimer on it saying that you're only allowed to use them if you're running an authorized copy of the OS. The same should have been done here, as you suggested.
Also, microsoft has specific anti-piracy safeguards in place to keep you from installing that software on your compaq that didnt come with it. Can you get around it? sure. Piracy happens, but its also illegal. But google has no such safeguards on the apps. Is it because they lacked the foresight to see this coming? Absolutely. If they didnt want the apps installed on non-branded/non-approved devices, then perhaps they should have made it impossible to do so. Sure, people would eventually find a way around it, but then they'd have a legitimate piracy gripe. As it is now, they dont. You dont hand a kid a cookie, let him eat half and then snatch it away because he shared the chocolate chips. You keep him away from the cookies from the get-go.
It really is a sad state of affiars. If something is going to be free, such as GMail, then Google shouldnt care how the users access it. How big of a chunk of their profits do you think its really going to hurt if people with the hero get a free copy of the gmail app? I bet their legal team made for handling this "issue" than it would cost them in ten years. If the apps in question were paid apps, then I would completely understand. People shouldnt get something free that they should have to pay for, which is one of the reasons that XDA has such a strict "warez" policy. But thats not the case.
The simplest solution would have been to realize that "oops, we did tell them it was open source, maybe we should clarify a bit and see if we can come to a reasonable understanding". But alas...
Also, to your point that the apps came with a specific device, what about those that purchased a device with those apps? We have a right to be using them as we see fit. When I bought my phone, I never signed anything that said that I couldnt theme the application if I wanted to. Google never made me sign a contract. And they couldnt, it would be ridiculous. What about people that purchased them on ebay or craigslist without a contract? They still bought the device and are the owner, and they certainly didnt have to agree not to modify any content. Is google going to go after every developer and every themer now too? Are they going to go after every end user who modified their content? It's just as illegal as making a rom that allows it to happen in the eyes of the law. Apple is attempting to do the same sort of crap with people jailbreaking the iphone. They're saying that even though you bought it, apple technically still owns it, so anything you do to it is illegal. Theres a huge legal debate going on over it right now and apple looks like theyre probably going to lose.
The safeguard they have in place is lack of root access. If you have root access yo have exploited a bug and are acting out of the designed use of the phone. You would not be able to backup or otherwise access these app files. Also, you would not be able to flash the new rom without root, which you gained by exploiting a bug.
Absolutely. But at the same time, the whole "exploiting a bug" argument is similarly null. If the bug never existed, two things would be true:
1. There would be no custom roms for end users, which Mr. Morrill says he supports and looks forward to seeing more of. This would be true since the idea of creating custom software would be idiotic as nobody would be able to install it. The only people utilizing the open-source framework would be major development houses, such as what creative is doing with the plazma stem-cell android that they're putting on the EGG. Application development has nothing to do with open source. The iPhone is not open source, but you can still develop apps for it.
2. The claim that they have about the free distribution of their intellectual property would hold merit, as it would be legitimate software piracy, instead of an unintended side effect of faulty design.
The first point is what makes this a farce. We, as developers, found a way to get custom software onto our devices, something which we were never intended to do. One of two things should have happened at that point: they should have let us continue to do it, which they did (closing the loophole could have been done, they could have found a way to prevent downgrading, seeing as there are no other OS options for the device) or they could have stopped it there and said that exploiting the bug is illegal. Its been a year since the device came out. This has been going on for a YEAR. You mean to tell me that this is an issue NOW and wasnt a year ago when it first started? Its only an issue because they're not the only game in town anymore. Ridiculous. Someone got their feathers ruffled and wanted to take out the little guy.
Ok, I am not going to keep replying to your endless wandering rebuttals. I feel you are wrong in who you are aiming your hate mail at and that is the end of the story.
Thats fine, and I do apologize for being excessively adamant about it. But I still feel I'm right. You only paint a target on yourself if you're prepared for people to shoot at you. Thats all I can say about it.
Darkrift said:
If Dell gives you a "free" copy of vista on your laptop, and then you buy a compaq with linux installed on it. Does that mean you have the right to install your "free" vista on the compaq also? It was free! How about you write a new windows shell and you bundle your free windows vista with it. And you also throw in your free copy of Office that came with it.
I understand their point and I realize these examples are not EXACT enough to matter, but the point does. They give you the apps for A SPECIFIC device and they give them to you with rules. Rules that we do not like.
I feel that they instead of C&D'ing him, should have had a little sit down with him. Said "hey, we realize you are doing a lot of good for us by promoting our product and giving those who want more what they ask for when we cannot, but we have some rules for you. A, you must make every attempt you can to make sure the roms you distribute go on authorized "With Google" devices. B, not release stuff you do not have permission to release." This would allow google to control what he releases enough to fit within the rules (keeps carriers from saying "hey, he can release your apps without paying, why cant we?"). They would also benefit from the many thousands of users who flock to these custom roms but realize they are unusable in their bare forms.
And so you do not have to, I will be the first to pull the term nazi out of my hat in this one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
About your dell giving you a "free" copy of vista. As long as that CD key is only used on one computer, you can use that CD key on ANY computer. Read their TOS. Your are wrong about a lot, but right about some. Changing the integrity of the windows shell is illegal, because that is microsoft property and NOT open source, but anytime you purchase an OS, or computer, you OWN that cd key of the software, all apps that come included as well. Could you try another example?
nice letter.
not so sure about the whole HTC (not "with google") phone thing- my magic is a HTC magic (32A) and it came will every single google app preinstalled on it.... not sure about hero though...
MontAlbert said:
nice letter.
not so sure about the whole HTC (not "with google") phone thing- my magic is a HTC magic (32A) and it came will every single google app preinstalled on it.... not sure about hero though...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hero did too.
Regards,
Dave
Hello,
thinking about installing OmniROM which sounds great! I'm using CyanogenMod 10.1.3 Stable. If you guys had CM what do you think? Is there big difference between those two ROMs?
Well as far as I know about CyanogenMod is been the best to date..!! OmniRoM on the other had has made a huge followers list and has been lead by Chainfire (superuser app developer).
My opinion is to be in CyanogenMod as long as you need changes to play with. Moreover Cyanogen has more supported devices than that of Omni.. And if you have your device on their list.. Give it a shot!
Well now coming to differences, Omnirom has multi-window support, has over clocking, and the rest are the same but with different interface..
Sent from my Motorola Xoom using xda app-developers app
Thank you for answer. I'm on Nexus 4 (soon Nexus 5). So I will continue with CyanogenMod until there will be stable version of OmniROM
It is way too early to tell if OmniROM can have as great of a following as CM. OmniROM has a very long road ahead if it wants to compete with CM simply because it needs to be supported on all the flagship devices and more. That is the only way OmniROM's name will get out there. There are so many people out there that haven't even heard of OmniROM yet but ask anyone about CM and most will tell you that they have heard of it.
I will give OmniROM a chance but it has to come to the Sprint LG G2 or else they are losing potential followers.
Better? Who knows, too early to tell.
Different? Sure. Many of the first developers involved with Omni are former CM maintainers/contributors dissatisfied with certain recent events (frequent ninjamerges without review, leads -2ing things with little explanation beyond "I don't like it", and most importantly, attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license.) To a great degree, it's about the spirit in which the projects are developed. We're going to try to be as open and receptive to new ideas as we possibly can.
Among other things I expect to see going forward - as CyanogenMod attempts to obtain GMS certification for CM on some devices, you may see a lot more features getting removed/rejected. (GMS is the ability to officially include gapps with a device. The CTS and CDD which have been discussed many times in the past are a part of this, but GMS can actually go way beyond this. I've heard, for example, of one OEM that wanted to preinstall a particular rotation control app. While that app is readily available on the Play Store, Google effectively said to that OEM, "You can preinstall that app, or have a GMS license - not both.")
Entropy512 said:
Better? Who knows, too early to tell.
Different? Sure. Many of the first developers involved with Omni are former CM maintainers/contributors dissatisfied with certain recent events (frequent ninjamerges without review, leads -2ing things with little explanation beyond "I don't like it", and most importantly, attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license.) To a great degree, it's about the spirit in which the projects are developed. We're going to try to be as open and receptive to new ideas as we possibly can.
Among other things I expect to see going forward - as CyanogenMod attempts to obtain GMS certification for CM on some devices, you may see a lot more features getting removed/rejected. (GMS is the ability to officially include gapps with a device. The CTS and CDD which have been discussed many times in the past are a part of this, but GMS can actually go way beyond this. I've heard, for example, of one OEM that wanted to preinstall a particular rotation control app. While that app is readily available on the Play Store, Google effectively said to that OEM, "You can preinstall that app, or have a GMS license - not both.")
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I noticed that Omni has a CLA as well (https://gerrit.omnirom.org/static/cla_individual_omni.html). How is the Omni CLA different from that of CM?
nushoin said:
I noticed that Omni has a CLA as well (https://gerrit.omnirom.org/static/cla_individual_omni.html). How is the Omni CLA different from that of CM?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you didn't read the full sentence
attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license
AFAIK CLA will be same, just that they won't try to trick authors into dual licensing like CM tried with focal
ericdabbs said:
I will give OmniROM a chance but it has to come to the Sprint LG G2 or else they are losing potential followers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
munchy_cool said:
you didn't read the full sentence
attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license
AFAIK CLA will be same, just that they won't try to trick authors into dual licensing like CM tried with focal
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah.
To be absolutely, 100% clear - They attempted to represent the CLA as something that would give them the ability to relicense a GPL contribution if the contributor was the original copyright holder of said contribution. (In the event where the contributor is not original copyright holder, no CLA in existence would allow relicensing because the contributor didn't have the rights to relicense the code.)
THIS IS NOT THE CASE. YOU CAN'T USE THE CLA THAT WAY. But they attempted to do so anyway - not only was it just wrong to treat a contributor like that, they misrepresented the document as giving legal powers it didn't actually give them.
The CLA is there as a "cover your ass" legal document in the case of a nasty legal dispute. I hope to hell we never have a need to use it. (In fact, in my opinion, the CLA is redundant and unnecessary for Apache and GPL licensed contributions, as the Apache and GPL licenses explicitly grant compatible redistribution/usage rights. Some other contributions are not as clear in terms of licensing, for example, media assets.) Another place it might come into play is if someone submits something with a license like that found in this file:
https://github.com/oppo-source/R819...89/kernel/drivers/dum-char/partition_define.c
In theory, if someone who was in the category of MTK or a licensor contributed such an item to our Gerrit, that contribution in combination with the CLA would be written permission to reproduce/modify/disclose the file. Note that not just anyone can submit something like that - there are other clauses to handle that (clause 7 I think???) - effectively saying that you yourself have the legal rights to contribute whatever you're contributing.
Oh, FYI, that file and files with similar licensing are one of the things holding back support of MTK devices.
One thing to note: CLAs DO exist that do give the kinds of power that Cyanogen, Inc. wanted to wield. An example is Canonical's Harmony CLA:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/4553.html - He links to the Harmony CLA there (direct link - http://www.canonical.com/sites/default/files/active/images/Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I.pdf ), take a look at clause 2.3 - it's nasty:
Code:
2.3 Outbound License
Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a
condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
licenses which We are using for the Material on the
Submission Date.
This is VERY different from the "sublicense" language in the AOSP CLA. For a bit on sublicensing:
(crap, can't find one of the better links I used to have...)
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/189633/what-sublicense-actually-means has some info
http://www.contractstandards.com/document-checklists/technology-license-agreement/sublicenses - Note "Additionally the scope of rights that the Licensee can sublicense is often narrower than the scope of the original license (e.g. the purpose or end-product is limited to those specifically enumerated)." - Commercial dual-licensing of a GPL contribution is prett unambiguously expanding the scope of the original license and NOT something that a CLA which only grants you sublicensing rights allows.