Dell Releases Streak Source Code

RandyDownes writes "Members of the developer community called Dell out for not releasing the complete source code for the Android-powered slate, thus violating the GPL. Dell has since complied and released the total custom Android 1.6 ROM to the public. Maybe now someone can get the minitablet/smartphone to run Froyo without breaking everything."

Comments

Not exactly all the source

[M Moogle]

It looks like Dell only released the parts that they're required to under the GPL - so the summary is wrong in saying they released the "total custom Android 1.6 ROM". However, the kernel alone should hopefully help get some custom ROMs started on this thing.

Because of a lawsuit from the FSF

[Meshach]

The reason for the about face is probably a lawsuit against cisco from the Free Software Federation. This is a good thing that the actions of the FSF are forcing other companies to properly comply with the open source licenses they choose.

Re:It's been what, a couple of months?

[MichaelSmith]

An offer for the source (or the source) is supposed to ship with the binaries.

Re:It's been what, a couple of months?

[Abcd1234]

According to the license, you have to release source and binaries at the same time.

No, according to the license, you have to provide it when asked for it. Otherwise mailing out floppies wouldn't have been allowed under the GPL.

Android is Apache licensed, not GPL licensed

[sphantom]

I'd just like to add for those readers not in the know that Android uses Apache licensing. They're not required to publish any modifications to Android, only to the kernel since it's GPL and not Apache. As such, it's highly likely that we'll never see the entire ROM's source code.

Re:Android is Apache licensed, not GPL licensed

[TheRaven64]

Nice selective highlighting, but you didn't do what I asked. Instead, you stopped just short of the bit I specifically told you to read. The very next paragraph after the bit that you quote states:

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

i.e. the GPL specifically permits this and neither Android, nor any other Linux distribution, needs to be GPL'd as a whole.

I even gave you the term (mere aggregation) to search the license for in my last post, yet somehow you managed to miss this paragraph.

Re:It's been what, a couple of months?

[bieber]

Why is this nonsense being modded up? The GPL very explicitly states that you must include the source code or an offer to produce source code on demand.

b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

Re:You are not sure either!

[TheRaven64]

nVidia does NOT distribute their blob linked to the kernel. The GPL is not magic, it relies on copyright law. Copyright law kicks in in two cases:

1. If you make copies of the copyrighted work.
2. If you make copies of derived works.

The nVidia blob is not a derived work of the kernel. The nVidia shim is, and so it must be GPL'd. The combined work of the blob, the shim, and the kernel, must be GPL'd if distributed together, but because nVidia only distributes the blob, not the kernel, this does not apply.

This is a problem for distributions, because they can not include the nVidia blob (most include a script that lets the user fetch and install it after install). It would also be a problem for anyone wanting to ship computers with Linux preinstalled and nVidia graphics.

Everyone take a chill pill, already.

[sgtrock]

Yes, Dell screwed up. Yes, they should have known better. However, once someone pointed out the error of their ways, they moved to resolve the problem about as fast as any large company can.

Compare what Dell did to what Cisco has done. The FSF was finally forced to file a lawsuit to get their attention because Cisco couldn't even be bothered to _talk_ to the the FSF about their GPL violations, let alone resolve them.