Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
BiasBiasPosted Jun 7, 2011 2:20 UTC (Tue) by leoc (subscriber, #39773)In reply to: Bias by xxiao Parent article: Android, forking, and control Do you have a source for that accusation?
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||