"destruk" wrote:
Maybe you should read the thing Enterr. You don't have to 'like' what is said, but it is in there.
Page 5 of 14 --
Channel Application Restrictions and Requirements; Rights to Code.
"D. Developer may not use the SDK to (i) enable the installation of third party channel applications, or (ii) to create Developer’s own version of a Channel Store."
Okay, so now you are changing your "objections". First you said that was "running your own 'channel store' " and i showed you it isn't - by directing you to the definition of what a "channel store" is.
Now you point you actually meant 5-D, which puts limits on the use of SDK. Worth looking at, since somehow you are having difficulty understanding it. Part (ii) is not applicable to the case, since we established this is not a "channel store" per contractual terms (see above, pray over it, sleep over it etc). Part (i) limits the use of SDK for "installation of third party channel applications" - and indeed you would have a point, were this a 3rd party app - which it isn't, if i properly understand the situation, with Rek as an agent of his employer, who is the "Developer" for the agreement. Read the preamble, see also this definition:
“Authorized Developers” means Developer and Developer’s employees, third party contractors, and
agents engaged in development of the Channel Application.
The case is even stronger - not only is this not a "3rd party app" but it is not being installed to a third party - Rek's co-workers are also Authorized Developers. Within the bounds of a "developer" organization, there is no "3rd party" nor is the app a "3rd party app".
By 'bypassing the channel store' you are effectively allowing your friends to run code which is neither a public nor private channel - as a sideloaded application - meaning your install is using a 'developer's own version' of a channel store which offers one or more dev packages to install.
There are so many things wrong with this, i am getting tired just trying to count them
1. nobody is 'bypassing the channel store' (who were you quoting - yourself?)
2. those are not "friends" - they are employees under the same roof, on the same LAN, which are authorized under the SDK agreement to sideload apps
3. there is no "channel store" being made (see above for N+1 time)
4. nothing "offers one or more dev packages to install" - seems you did not even understand what i proposed, which makes me sad
All in all, i am tired explaining to you a fairly straightforward matter. If still in doubt, call Roku Inc's legal counsel and maybe he will explain it to you. Alternatively, consult an attorney. I trust Rek can draw his own conclusions.
