I wish it was for C# instead of C++. I'd like to tinker around with some phone apps, but Monos prices are too high.
The regular environment for Android is free. As is the regular environment for Windows Phone.
Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
21–30 of 41 posts
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#22how is this better than vs-android? https://github.com/gavinpugh/vs-android
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#23Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Justin Webb granted the licence, NaturalMotion Limited explicitly didn't. NaturalMotion has a licence and that probably includes their veto on any following licence given by Justin. I'm not a lawyer or particularly strong with English, but at least it makes sense in this interpretation.
"Justin Webb granted the licence, " Except it's used under license from naturalmotion, and naturalmotion owns the code (hence the copyright naturalmotion). Yet, naturalmotion explicitly grants no rights. I can state affirmatively this makes no sense :) As I said, either they've granted rights (through justin), in which case that statement that they grant no rights should not be there (because they are in fact, granti…
They grant rights to justin but not, at least not directly or actively, to the recipient. But, the syntax is really awful and wouldn't pass any compiler if this was a programm. IMHO courts should rule in favour of the doubt for any misuse, say for uncomercial FOSS stuff. I know you mean that on the business side of things, caution of overarching decisions is advised.
What the copyright stuff means to me is that I'm not allowed to relicense, but i could modify or distribute unmodified.
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like, it is open source, but it's not free open source?
The term open source means you have to, at least, have the right to use, modify, and redistribute modifications. It's more than just being able to see the source.
I believe you're confusing Open Source with Free Software. Open Source literally means the source is openly accessible.
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#26As a lawyer, this licensing is super worrying to me "Copyright (C) 2013-2015 NaturalMotion Limited. Used under licence. Code written by Justin Webb. Licence granted by Justin Webb with the permission of NaturalMotion Limited. No rights are granted by NaturalMotion Limited under this licence. " Uh, so Justin is using it under license from natural motion, and justin has been granted the right to license it, but natural…
By uploading their code to a public GitHub repository, they agree to GitHub's terms of service[1], which grants other users additional rights to this code.
Although NaturalMotion Limited says they grant no rights under this license, you are allowed to fork this repository, as they have implicitly granted those rights to you by agreeing to the GitHub terms of service.
[1] https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/
§ F. Copyright and Content Ownership
"We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories."
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#27As a lawyer, this licensing is super worrying to me "Copyright (C) 2013-2015 NaturalMotion Limited. Used under licence. Code written by Justin Webb. Licence granted by Justin Webb with the permission of NaturalMotion Limited. No rights are granted by NaturalMotion Limited under this licence. " Uh, so Justin is using it under license from natural motion, and justin has been granted the right to license it, but natural…
By uploading their code to a public GitHub repository, they agree to GitHub's terms of service[1], which grants other users additional rights to this code. Although NaturalMotion Limited says they grant no rights under this license, you are allowed to fork this repository, as they have implicitly granted those rights to you by agreeing to the GitHub terms of service. [1] https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-…
I'm no lawyer but I'm not sure that allowing others the ability to view and fork your repositories is the equivalent of granting them a real license to the code. I don't think the definition of fork implies much in the way of licensing, but I could be wrong.
I'm thinking that they are talking about forking within the GitHub infrastructure, which means having the same code in multiple locations within GitHub (as a copy). The licensing doesn't change when the code is forked.
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#28As a lawyer, this licensing is super worrying to me "Copyright (C) 2013-2015 NaturalMotion Limited. Used under licence. Code written by Justin Webb. Licence granted by Justin Webb with the permission of NaturalMotion Limited. No rights are granted by NaturalMotion Limited under this licence. " Uh, so Justin is using it under license from natural motion, and justin has been granted the right to license it, but natural…
By uploading their code to a public GitHub repository, they agree to GitHub's terms of service[1], which grants other users additional rights to this code. Although NaturalMotion Limited says they grant no rights under this license, you are allowed to fork this repository, as they have implicitly granted those rights to you by agreeing to the GitHub terms of service. [1] https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-…
Let's assume for a second that viewing and forking are clear and obvious copyright rights (they aren't), and that they somehow cover downloading and using (they probably wouldnt).
"By uploading their code to a public GitHub repository, they agree to GitHub's terms of service[1], which grants other users additional rights to this code. "
This has literally never been upheld in court, nor is it likely to be upheld in a way that people want (see the above parts about what rights it really covers), to be frank :)
Additionally, it would be inapplicable in this case.
You can't give away rights you don't have. Note that NaturalMotion didn't upload this, Justin did.
If you upload some Google owned source code, you haven't suddenly granted rights on behalf of Google, you've just likely committed copyright infringement.
Someone relying on the github license grant (ie a viewer or downloader) would still be a copyright infringer, and in turn try to use the "innocent infringement" defense (17 USC 504(c)(2)). They would fall neatly into the category of people who believed they had a license to use it. The problem, of course,is that this defense is eliminated completely by the presence of the notice. See 17 USC 401(d).
So the people who downloaded and used it would be screwed as well, despite whatever github has written here :)
(I have no evidence or position on whether the result would be different if naturalmotion knew or acquiesced explicitly to the uploading to github. But then you'd still hit the same viewing and forking rights are not the same as downloading and using rights, and it's highly unlikely you would convince a court they are the same).
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#29As a lawyer, this licensing is super worrying to me "Copyright (C) 2013-2015 NaturalMotion Limited. Used under licence. Code written by Justin Webb. Licence granted by Justin Webb with the permission of NaturalMotion Limited. No rights are granted by NaturalMotion Limited under this licence. " Uh, so Justin is using it under license from natural motion, and justin has been granted the right to license it, but natural…
Legally speaking you are correct. Practically speaking, I'm not sure it really matters. It seems like this is a project written by one guy to make his job easier, in light of Microsoft's own Android/VS project he made the decision to release this project to open source expecting a decrease in interest over time (Android++ appears to have some benefits over the official project for now, but realistically speaking just…
" I can't imagine anyone practically claiming any copyright violations as a result of any of this even if the license is legal mumbo-jumbo."
As mentioned, naturalmotion could actually probably sue every downloader/user for copyright infringement. Would they? Who knows.
Now practically, most of the time you are right. The problem is what is practical now doesn't always stay that way. Companies get acquired, change owners, people's monetary situation changes, etc. More often than not shit gets weird before rights get extinguished.
So my experience is that 90-95% of the time, you are right, nobody cares, it all goes according to plan.
The other 5-10% of the time, it requires lawyers and a lot of money to unf*ck it.
Hacker news rarely hears about these cases, sadly.
So sure, if you want to play the odds, go for it. But I find engineers are very Laissez-faire about this kind of thing right up until it comes down on them like a ton of bricks.
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
By uploading their code to a public GitHub repository, they agree to GitHub's terms of service[1], which grants other users additional rights to this code. Although NaturalMotion Limited says they grant no rights under this license, you are allowed to fork this repository, as they have implicitly granted those rights to you by agreeing to the GitHub terms of service. [1] https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-…
I'm no lawyer but I'm not sure that allowing others the ability to view and fork your repositories is the equivalent of granting them a real license to the code. I don't think the definition of fork implies much in the way of licensing, but I could be wrong. I'm thinking that they are talking about forking within the GitHub infrastructure, which means having the same code in multiple locations within GitHub (as a cop…
I'm not saying that you can distribute the code or compiled code outside of GitHub. As I understand it (IANAL), it seems like you have the right to edit this repository on GitHub as long as it stays on GitHub and not redistribute it through any other avenues.
Edit: Someone mentioned that Justin uploaded this repository, and not NaturalMotion. If Justin doesn't already have the right to distribute this on GitHub, then the rights granted to you by the ToS probably don't apply.