A few points; 1) you're contradicting yourself. There is no difference between a "level store" and selling mp3's or other crap. 2) there is NO DIFFERENCE between LAW and LOGIC -- they are PRECISELY THE SAME, the only difference is in the LANGUAGE. That is why contracts and license agreements are so verbose and precise -- to cover every possibility without throwing an exception. They state the specific and precise requirements -- if (complyA && complyB && complyC) getPaid(); else sufferConsequences(); etc. 3) yes, they can change the license, but UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY DO, the current license remains valid. 4) you have no basis to be judging INTENT. To come to the conclusions you seem to have reached would require direct consultation with whoever drafted the license, and that person would likely have to consult with whoever came up with the ideas behind the license. Quite frankly, I believe that you are misinterpreting the intent anyways -- otherwise they would have stopped that sentence at the word "materials" -- what possible reason would they have for adding in what amounts to a RESTRICTION ON THE SCOPE of their agreement?
5) If you are incapable of understanding the contract, and since I doubt that you will get any more applicable free non-legally-binding use-at-your-own-risk legal advice, I suggest you hire a competent lawyer and or contact google directly for clarification. On Mar 25, 2:07 am, Jon Colverson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 24, 6:08 pm, Yuri Ammosov - Sadko Mobile <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > No, it does not. Read carefully. > > > Products: Software, content and digital materials created for Devices > > in accordance with the Android SDK ***and distributed via the > > Market***. > > > It's not distributed via Market, it's not a Product. > > I did notice that. If we take it at face value then we could make a > free game with two levels and a "level store" that sells more levels > with payment via PayPal. That would clearly be against the intent of > the distribution agreement, though. On the other end of the spectrum, > an app that is a front-end for a web store for buying e-books or MP3s > would probably be fine. The case that we are currently talking about, > where an RPG game is selling content for use in the game itself, is > closer to my first example than my second, in my opinion. > > You might argue that it is the letter of the agreement rather than the > intent which is important, but the agreement contains a provision > allowing Google to change it at will, so I think that makes > understanding the intent vitally important. > > On Mar 24, 7:00 pm, lbcoder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Exactly. > > This is something that anyone capable of writing apps should be able > > to understand. I've never heard of a computer science program (i.e. > > college/university) that didn't require at least a rudimentary BOOLEAN > > LOGIC course.... > > Unfortunately, we are in the realm of legalese, not boolean logic. > There's no need to be insulting about it. I'm not defending or > attacking Google's policy; I'm merely trying to help us all understand > it and proposing a solution for downloadable content that avoids legal > ambiguity. > > If you want to make a Market app that sells add-ons outside the Market > then you're free to try it, but personally I think you would be > running the risk of Google taking down your app and/or changing the > agreement to explicitly forbid it. > > -- > Jon --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
