
Android++, native development and debugging for Visual Studio, now open-source - webbju
https://github.com/webbju/android-plus-plus
======
DannyBee
As 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.

~~~
throwupper247
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.

~~~
DannyBee
"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, granting rights) Or they haven't granted rights (through justin), in
which case it's not open source and who knows what rights you are getting
here.

~~~
throwupper247
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.

------
muizelaar
How's this different from
[https://github.com/Microsoft/MIEngine](https://github.com/Microsoft/MIEngine)?

~~~
webbju
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.

------
SXX
Is someone find out is this "source available" or "open source"?

------
skrowl
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.

~~~
pmalynin
Xamarin.

~~~
skrowl
Xamarin is the company, Mono is the product, right?

~~~
paraboul
Xamarin is the whole mobile environment (including framework), Mono is "just"
an open source .NET implementation and a C# compiler.

