Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#2As 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 motion is explicitly not granting any rights under those licenses?
That is somewhat nonsensical. Either naturalmotion is granting rights through justin, or they aren't.
If they aren't, it's not clear anyone has the right to use the code. If they are, the "no rights are granted by natural motion" part is wrong.
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#3I wish it was for C# instead of C++. I'd like to tinker around with some phone apps, but Monos prices are too high.
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#4How's this different from https://github.com/Microsoft/MIEngine?
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#5How's this different from https://github.com/Microsoft/MIEngine ?
The MI engine is Visual Studio 2015's debugger extension (it's probably going to be a lot better than my part-time effort). Android++ takes a different approach with building projects - using explicit MSBuild tasks rather than relying on ANT. Since 2015's Update 1 that's where most of the merit still remains.
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#6As 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…
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.
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#7As 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…
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.
That strongly implies it's not open source.
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#8As 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…
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.
It sounds like what they are saying is that (a) NaturalMotion owns the copyright on the code, (b) NaturalMotion granted Justin permission to sub-license the code, and (c) Justin distributed the code under a BSD license.
However, the language defining step (b) ("granted by Justin Webb with the permission of NaturalMotion Limited") is hand-wavy and doesn't spell out exactly what rights are granted, so I would agree that this seems legally pretty shaky. What rights is NaturalMotion intending to reserve by including the following sentence? If there are any, do they conflict with the ability to redistribute under a BSD license? If there are none, why is that sentence there ar all?
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#9As 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 having the full support of Microsoft behind it versus the effort of one guy means Android++ loses over time). His employer got involved because legally they own the copyright since he wrote it while being employed by them and in service of his job there, and they okayed the open source release but ultimately didn't want to get involved in any way that they might be seen to have any liability, thus the kind of nonsensical license.
(All of that is totally speculation on my part, fwiw).
But given all the above and the fact that you don't need to distribute Android++ code as part of products you make with it, 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.
I wouldn't be particularly worried about using Android++, worse case scenario you get a cease and desist on using it, but since it is a development tool you can pretty easily just switch to Microsoft's project at that point (copyright issues with the development tool shouldn't taint the end product you create with it in this case) and practically speaking nobody is going to issue that C&D.
My bigger worry than the copyright concerns (if I had any vested interest in the project) would be the Android++ name due to the obvious trademark violation, which is harder for everyone involved to just ignore if they are made aware of it.
At any rate, misunderstanding of software licenses wrt open source is a pet peeve of mine as well, so I think pointing out this issue is totally valid, but practically speaking I wouldn't worry about it in this particular case if I used this software.
Re: Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source
#10As 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…
Since you're a lawyer, can they even use the trademarked Android name like that?