4 ms·
To cut to the chase, the Engadget's poster isn't a developer (according to ZDNet's poster) and he forgot to mention that the files that we're similar do not shi
by moondowner 16y ago
To cut to the chase, the Engadget's poster isn't a developer (according to ZDNet's poster) and he forgot to mention that the files that we're similar do not ship with Android, they are either used for testing or debugging.
UPDATE: FlorianMueller posted comments on the ZDNet post.
- blinkingled 16y agoHis comment doesn't seem to amount to anything. His contention is that the files are still there in AOSP git tree when the key point was that those are "TESTS" which means they are likely not "shipped" with Android and so the assumed impact if any is not anywhere near as dire as the original Engadget post or Folrian's own blog post made it out to be. EDIT: Ryan Paul's take - http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-alleged-evidence-of-android-infringement-isnt-a-smoking-gun.ars http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-alleged-... . He confirms that the files in question are non-shipping ones.
- moondowner 16y agoRyan's post is good, he explains things more thoroughly. Very important: "It's not clear how the zip file got included in the AOSP, but it's obvious that it wasn't intended to be there and isn't actually used by Android in any capacity."
- pixelbath 16y agoHis comments amount roughly to: "I am too a real developer," and lots of "maybe this code was shipped," but nothing concrete. edit: Thought the blog post was removed from Techmeme, but was mistaken.
- Magnin 16y agoI love that he protests the "He is not a lawyer" with "Some of my blog posts have been recommended by leading legal websites"
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]