Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
ABS: Android beyond the phoneABS: Android beyond the phonePosted Apr 21, 2011 17:14 UTC (Thu) by w_sang (guest, #52415)In reply to: ABS: Android beyond the phone by iabervon Parent article: ABS: Android beyond the phone
It is not about "if it makes sense" (besides, I think it does). To the best of my knowledge, vendors will in most cases simply have to ship their changes to the kernel. The question to the speaker was if those vendors are aware of this and are prepared to have the necessary infrastructure. The fact, that the even he, being a consultant as far as I understood, did not (or did not want to?) understand the question gave a good picture of the current situation IMO.
(Log in to post comments)
Why should they ship anything Posted Apr 22, 2011 0:21 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Well, the literal reading of the GPL will of course mean that drivers should be shipped but when there are literally hundreds of millions of devices where drivers and binary-only blobs (I mean routers)... will any court really accept the theory that it was not the intention of developers in first place - what with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and everything?
Why should they ship anything Posted Apr 22, 2011 3:41 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
The point of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL has always been to indicate that the authors feel that there's no possible way that you could use the functionality without being a derived work. But it's also always been explicit that this is not intended to mean that avoiding EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL means that you're *not* a derived work. At that point you're just in a slightly greyer area.
|
|||||||||||||