| |||||||||||||
BiasBiasPosted Jun 6, 2011 23:05 UTC (Mon) by tonyblackwell (subscriber, #43641)In reply to: Bias by corbet Parent article: Android, forking, and control
I found the article interesting, informative, and apparently giving a very even-handed account of the original presentation. The LWN report rather clearly avoided superimposing any bias or particular point of view, as we have all (almost all) come to appreciate. We are all here because we value this highly.
(Log in to post comments)
Bias Posted Jun 6, 2011 23:52 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link]
Our editor needn't worry (or be grumpy) about this. I'm sure about 99.99% of LWN readers will approve of the report, as usual.
Bias Posted Jun 7, 2011 0:02 UTC (Tue) by xxiao (subscriber, #9631) [Link]
Android is not FOSS anymore and it cheated. it's giving code to only a selected few, worse than closed code where any players can pay/license to get access to.
I heard a few tablet players eager to get Win8-for-ARM now as they can not access the new android anymore after they jumped on the boat.
Bias Posted Jun 7, 2011 2:20 UTC (Tue) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] Do you have a source for that accusation?
Bias Posted Jun 7, 2011 2:30 UTC (Tue) by xxiao (subscriber, #9631) [Link]
those are all public info, from what google stated recently, to the fact that a few players(motorola,samsung,..) are selling 3.0(soon 3.1) and the core code is nowhere to find for the rest,what else do you need?
Bias Posted Jun 7, 2011 14:01 UTC (Tue) by KSteffensen (subscriber, #68295) [Link]
As I understand it, the GPL states that if you buy some piece of software you must receive the source code, that you are free to modify and redistribute this source code and that any modifications must also be GPL'ed.
If Google chooses to sell Android to just a few players and not to others, that is not a violation of the GPL. If these select few players choose not to distribute the code to people or corporations they have no obligation to (and have sold nothing to), then that is not a violation of the GPL.
FOSS is not about all source code being available to everyone at no cost, FOSS is about the right to modify stuff you have bought and paid for.
Bias Posted Jun 7, 2011 14:08 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
That depends on the choice of distribution mechanism for the code. If 3(b) is used, then anyone must be able to request the source - whether they received the binaries or not. But that's not relevant here, since Google have published all their GPLed code for 3.0. What's missing is the material under the Apache license, which nobody is obliged to give to anyone.
Bias Posted Jun 7, 2011 15:56 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
No, the companies that distribute binaries of GPL software must do so under the GPL. Nothing else gives them the right to do so. The point is only the kernel of Honeycomb is GPL and Google has released the source for that. The rest is under the Apache license or is Google-owned.
Bias Posted Jun 10, 2011 23:11 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] FOSS is not about all source code being available to everyone at no cost, FOSS is about the right to modify stuff you have bought and paid for.No, the companies that distribute binaries of GPL software must do so under the GPL. KSteffensen's point is that a company doesn't have to distribute binaries of GPL software (and consequently doesn't have to distribute source code). KSteffensen makes a very astute observation: getting people to distribute source code is a means, not an end, in the FOSS philosophy.
Bias Posted Jun 7, 2011 7:04 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
I guess you're talking about Honeycomb. The kernel source continues to be out there, as it should, and though the rest of it has not been released, Google has declared that Ice Cream Sandwich will be open source. Honeycomb seems to have been a rushed job to compete with the iPad, and too buggy for wider use; it seems that Google fears Android's reputation will suffer if they release it to non-approved manufacturers.
But I thought this is what the Apache license is meant to guard against. It does not permit use of trademarked names (without explicit permission). Android is trademarked by Google. So third-party distributors, if not approved by Google, are not allowed to call it Android. So why not let them have Honeycomb, but make them call it something else?
Bias Posted Jun 7, 2011 14:47 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
I suspect that they fear the junkier tablets made in places where copyright and trademarks are ignored. If they released the Honeycomb code, it would end up on those tablets despite any trademark threats.
Bias Posted Jun 9, 2011 4:49 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
So, in short, Android is "Open Source Only When Google Likes It To Be So" and not real Open Source, right? Here's something to add to Android's reputation.
Bias Posted Jun 9, 2011 5:13 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Gingerbread is open source, by any definition. Honeycomb is not. Where do "real" and "fake" enter into this?
Bias Posted Jun 9, 2011 14:37 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
Where do they enter? When you wrote them.
Gingerbread is open source, by any definition. Honeycomb is not. Android is maybe.
|
|||||||||||||