Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
GNU Guix launches
Posted Nov 26, 2012 16:09 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Posted Nov 27, 2012 2:04 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
Posted Nov 27, 2012 4:13 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
Which, I guess, would include things like what happened with Honeycomb, where Google decided not to release the source because the branch was a dead end. That's a risk any time you get software from a company (or project) that holds all the copyright, since they can arbitrarily relicense it even if it's under a copyleft license, but it can happen to any software that's under a non-copyleft license. It's a classic question about whose freedom you care more about: the developer who already has the source or the downstream user who may want it. Permissive licenses care more about the freedom of developers, and copyleft licenses care more about the freedom of users.
Posted Nov 27, 2012 5:49 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
Also, a different way of putting the permissive/copyleft distinction is that permissive "cares" more about the code whereas copyleft "cares" more about the project as a whole. The GPL has certainly helped Linux as a project keep an identity and permissive licensing has helped get companies using a solid code as a base (e.g., the PostgreSQL forks) instead of Yet Another Flavor. Obviously, this isn't a complete picture (Android exists and there are how many BSD flavors?).
Posted Nov 30, 2012 6:22 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
I read that Honeycomb source was released with Ice Cream Sandwich, just not tagged as such. Provided that source (IIRC, it was on this site I read it) was correct, it's just missing the neon lights, but you have access to it.
You have work which was done on trunk before the cut-off, but not what was actually released. Not that you want it: ICS is clearly better thus by now Honeycomb is mostly of historical interest.
The whole story also shows the other side of freedom: freedom to push the thing out of the door on time. How many times opportunity to seize some piece of market share was there but "proper FOSS projects" (community-based ones) failed to realize it because of their "it's ready when it's ready" philosophy?
Of course this is mostly "company-driven" vs "community-driven" thing, not a licensing thing: when RedHad needed decent C++ support it pushed "gcc 2.96" out of the door even if "community" loudly protested. But the ability to hide embarrassing gory details helps.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds