Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Jan 2013 18:29 UTC
Permalink for comment 547342
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
I think two issues are worrying about this clause:
1. There is no clause anywhere in the agreement that exactly defines what "fragmentation" actually means.
2. They give it an even wider scope by quoting the classic "including but not limited to" phrase, which you can interpret anywhere from "exactly what I've mentioned is included" to "the entire universe is included".
As a branding/trademark issue, it would better of Google to say:
"If you modify the Android SDK and then redistribute it, you may no longer use the word "Android" anywhere in the title of the redistributed SDK or use the stock Android images (green robot etc) to promote it. You may also not make any claims that it is fully compatible with the unmodified Android SDK."
In other words, something similar to the way Mozilla handles its branding (they are sensitive about the name and the logo if you start hacking the source and redistributing it).