| |||||||||||||
GPLv2's implicit patent license and DalvikGPLv2's implicit patent license and DalvikPosted Jun 7, 2011 10:40 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753)In reply to: GPLv2's implicit patent license and Dalvik by aryonoco Parent article: Android, forking, and control ...Dalvik and Bionic library. Both are much leaner and have a much smaller footprint than Java VM or glibc... In the case of glibc, there would have been several existing light-weight alternatives already in 2004, some with other than GPL licenses.
(Log in to post comments)
GPLv2's implicit patent license and Dalvik Posted Jun 7, 2011 21:04 UTC (Tue) by danieldk (guest, #27876) [Link]
Aren't portions of Bionic based on BSD libc?
http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2008/11/six-million-dolla...
Also, it seems the rationale for making Bionic are license, size, and speed:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/patrick-brady-dissects...
Libc licenses Posted Jun 9, 2011 8:52 UTC (Thu) by justincormack (subscriber, #70439) [Link]
I think all the other light weight libcs are in fact LGPL/GPL, eg uclibc, dietlibc. Newlib is partly LGPL too.
Libc licenses Posted Jun 29, 2011 16:13 UTC (Wed) by JoelSherrill (guest, #43881) [Link]
newlib contains very little code under [L]GPL. No [L]GPL code is supposed to be in any configuration unless it is in the OS specific code. For GNU/Linux, this source is under the libc/sys/linux subdirectory.
If Google had chosen newlib, there would have been less work to get it clean for Android than putting together a new library.
FWIW newlib is used by Cygwin and RTEMS along with bare metal users of GNU tools. It supports a variety of architectures. Newlib is an old project with a community around it.
|
|||||||||||||