Seems so > http://www.copyscape.com when submitting this URL > http://appslib.com/terms_conditions/AppsLib_tnc.htm
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > I've just dugg up the URL and it looks soooo close to the Market ones it > suggest to me they took a copy of Googles T&Cs and only changed the wording > to refer to Appslib and Archos devices. Have a look at these examples (and > no, I haven't changed the section numbers, they really are the same); > > > > For example; > > > > Market; > > "4.5 Non-Compete. You may not use the Market to distribute or make > available any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the > distribution of Products outside of the Market." > > > > Appslib; > > "4.5 Non-Compete AppsLib may not be used to distribute or make available > Apps whose primary purpose would be to facilitate the distribution of > Products outside the AppsLib" > > Market; > "5.1 You grant to Google a nonexclusive, worldwide, and royalty-free > license to: copy, perform, display, and use the Products for administrative > and demonstration purposes in connection with the operation and marketing of > the Market and to use the Products to make improvements to the Android > platform. " > > Appslib; > "5.1 THE COMPANY will be granted a nonexclusive, worldwide, and > royalty-free license to: copy, perform, display, and use the Apps for > administrative and demonstration purposes, related to the operation and > marketing of the AppsLib and THE COMPANY devices, as well as to use the Apps > to improve its devices." > > Market; > "10.2 If you want to terminate this Agreement, you must provide Google > with thirty (30) days prior written notice (unless this Agreement terminates > under Section 14.1) and cease your use of any relevant developer > credentials." > > Appslib; > "10.2 A thirty (30) day prior written notice to THE COMPANY is required > from you should you need to terminate this Agreement and cease your use of > any relevant developer credentials. This does not apply to Termination under > section 14.1." > > > > and it goes on, and on, and on like this. > > > > I wonder if Archos hired Googles lawyers or have licensed the agreement > from them? If anyone wants to compare the two the URLs are; > > > > http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html > > and > > http://appslib.com/terms_conditions/AppsLib_tnc.htm > Interestingly enough the appslib URL uses tnc, but even calls the page > "AppsLib Apps Developer Distribution Agreement" which sounds very close to > Markets " Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement" > > Al. > > > > -- > > * Looking for Android apps?, try http://andappstore.com/ * > > ====== > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > subsidiaries. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Shane Isbell > *Sent:* 04 September 2009 23:13 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [android-discuss] Re: Archos Device/Email from appslib > > > > Even more interesting: > > Developers are not allowed to issue refunds but they are subject to > chargebacks. If the Store Manager (I assume archos) decides not to issue a > refund, the user would then just do a chargeback and the developer gets the > bill. Am I reading this right? > > ----- > > 3.4 Refund Requirements - Special. > > THE COMPANY will not refund any apps willingly purchased by customers, > unless discretional decision by the Store Managers. > > 3.5 You Support Your Product. > > Maintenance and Support for Apps as well as Complaints about them are the > sole responsibility of the Developers. Each application will explicitly > display contact details, and customers are free to contact you for any > reason they deem necessary. > > Failure to provide adequate support for your Products may result in low > Product ratings, less prominent product exposure, low sales and billing > disputes. Except in cases when multiple disputes are initiated by a user > with abnormal dispute history, billing disputes received by Payment > Processor for Products sold for less than $10 may be automatically charged > back to the Developer, in addition to any handling fees charged by the > Payment Processor. Chargeback requests for Products sold $10 or more will be > handled in accordance with the Payment Processor's standard policy. > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Shane Isbell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Looks as though their agreement is similar to Google's > > 4.5 Non-Compete > > AppsLib may not be used to distribute or make available Apps whose primary > purpose would be to facilitate the distribution of Products outside the > AppsLib > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Given the non-standard nature of the device (unsupported resolution, > possible lack of Google apps, etc.) I had hoped they would have tried to > openly work with the development community and engage it. What we've seen so > far is an Android skin which I'm still not sure if it works correctly (see > 6th message and onwards in > http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss/browse_thread/thread/7fd52bdab3cfd1aa) > and spamming as many developers as they could get email addresses for to try > and get them to list on their applications site, which is not the most > friendly of approaches. > > All this and we still don't know much about the device itself; > > - How hacked is the version of Android? The status bar in > http://appslib.com/img/website/screen_dev1_big.jpg look like the UI at > least has changes well beyond what HTC did with Rosie (look at the status > bar). > > - Can you use the SDK to run apps on device? The appslib site only refers > to using the emulator & skin and makes no mention of on-device development. > I'd have thought their marketing department would jumped in with a plug for > the devices to tap into the developer market with a pre-order link. > > - Archoses have a history of protecting the internals of their firmware > (see http://forum.archosfans.com/viewtopic.php?p=75799#p76889) so would > they let people poke around on the device with adb shell, pull, etc.? > > - How much space is there for apps?, are we going to have another Samsung > Galaxy moment where the device manufacturer makes the total amount of > storage prominent in their specs yet the space for apps is still quite > limited? > > - What is the "Approved by Archos" scheme shown in that screenshot?, Is it > similar to the idea I blogged about nearly a year ago? ( > http://alsutton.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/google-android-and-code-signing-app-shops/), > and how does an app become "Approved by Archos". > > > One of the reasons I have these concerns is that I own a current Archos 5 > and have found it to be less than ideal with problems with playback of > encoded video is hit and miss (see > http://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8819) amongst other things > and it's now been EOLed in terms of firmware with these issues being left > unfixed. > > Looking back at how the current Archos 5 was received (see > http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/29/archos-5-unboxing-and-hands-on/) it > would appear that Archos have released great devices with disappointing > software in the past, so I'm wondering if we could be heading down this road > again. > > > Al. > > -- > > * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * > > ====== > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > subsidiaries. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of JP > Sent: 02 September 2009 06:42 > To: Android Discuss > Subject: [android-discuss] Re: Archos Device/Email from appslib > > > > I do fault them. Freedom comes with responsibility so > I rather not deal with people that operate > like that. > > > On Sep 1, 2:16 pm, "Mark Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with most of your concerns, except for a minor quibble on this > one: > > > > > (has anyone seen any posts from > > > them to any mailing lists or forums?). > > > > I'm fairly certain, particularly on the AOSP groups, that some hardware > > manufacturers' engineers post under personal/generic email accounts. > > > > Now, it'd be *much* better if firms who have announced devices would post > > from addresses on their own domains, but it's a free Internet, so I can't > > really fault them if they want to be anonymous. Certainly, if they have > > not announced devices yet, being anonymous makes perfect sense. > > > > I'm always pleased when I see major Android players post publicly, such > as > > our T-Mobile contingent. > > > > -- > > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com > > Android App Developer Books:http://commonsware.com/books.html > > > > > -- > Shane Isbell (Co-founder of SlideME - The Original Market for Android) > http://twitter.com/sisbell > http://twitter.com/slideme > > > > > -- > Shane Isbell (Co-founder of SlideME - The Original Market for Android) > http://twitter.com/sisbell > http://twitter.com/slideme > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
