Slashdot Mirror
Google's Honeycomb Source Code Release Is On Ice
itwbennett writes "'Ice Cream Sandwich', that is. Apparently it's source code delay week, as Google joins Apple in delaying the release of source code for open source licensed software. Except, unlike Apple, which promptly released the LGPL WebKit code in question Monday afternoon, Google stated yesterday that it will not release the source code for Android 3.0 (Honeycomb) until after the release of the next version of Android (Ice Cream Sandwich). This is not necessarily news, since Google said last month that source code would be held for an indeterminate time and released when it was ready. It's just that now 'indeterminate' has an actual date: post-launch of Ice Cream Sandwich. The question, says blogger Brian Proffitt, is: 'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?'"
Then why are you posting it?
The question, says blogger Brian Proffitt, is: 'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?"
Because they have lots of monies?
What do I win?
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?
Err, because no one is going to step up and stop them, that's how
This story has been covered here before... earlier today.
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?"
Can't they do this specifically because they chose the Apache License v2?
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?" Well, see, anyone who would fight them uses google mail....
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?
Actually, this is precisely why they use the ASL instead of the GPL.
google cach of old ars article with good explanation.
And seriously, the name Brian "Proffitt" sounds like someone trying to generate clicks.
Didn't we cover this yesterday?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Maybe I'm missing something but this looks like a dup in less than 24 hours. That's impressive, even by slashdot standards...
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/05/11/0041250/Android-Honeycomb-Will-Not-Be-Open-Sourced
How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?
Because it's licensed under the Apache Software License, which does not require that the source code be offered?
Two things. Number one: Google is the copyright holder for most of the software in question. Any community contributors presumably have copyright assignments to Google. Even if the code was released under GPLv3 (and it isn't) they would be under no obligation to release the code because they own it and can do whatever they like. The copyright holder cannot by definition, violate a license they grant. For the stuff that they aren't the copyright holder (e.g. the kernel), they have complied with the license and released the source code where required. Number two: the Apache Software License Version 2 is a non-copyleft license. Read it carefully and please tell me where it says that redistribution requires source code release.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
You know what would be cool? If Google actually produced real sandwich ice cream with the Android shape: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/05/10/icecreamsandwich.jpg
Hey, you've heard it first time from me! Google I just want 10% on this.
It is rare to find an article that attempts to analyze legal issues on OSS licenses that is even more horrifying than the worst comments from people pretending to be lawyers on Slashdot.
I don't tend to complain about article quality on slashdot, but this one is pretty extreme. The whole article is basically some random dude making himself look like an idiot by being clueless about OSS licenses and then pretends to be a lawyer. At least on Slashdot, people do know OSI approved licenses do not require source to be provided with the binary.
AND, as others have already noticed, it's a dupe!
Don't quote me on this.
So we just did this story about a day or two ago. Meanwhile I submitted what I meant as an honest "ask slashdot" question:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1576394/Viability-of-cell-phone-without-cell-network
And for some reason it simply disappears from the submission list. Does anyone know why that is? I don't mean that it isn't chosen or modded up - I mean it's there for about 60 seconds after I press submit, and then just disappears even though obvious spam submissions from before and after mine remain. If I have the URL, I can still see it, but it's gone from the "recent" list within a minute.
This has happened to stories involving links to news that I've submitted in the past too. It's like they fall off into the aether. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain what that's about? I thought it might be because I submitted it as an AC, but that then, I've seen other things submitted by ACs which it doesn't appear to happen to. Hell, it doesn't even seem to happen to spam and nonsense entries.
itwbennett misrepresents what Proffitt said. Proffitt noted accurately that the Apache Software License doesn't require the release of the source code. Not just not immediately, it doesn't require it to ever be released.
This seems like more of the same anti-Google FUD that we've been bombarded with recently. It is a classic political tactic called "attack your opponent's strength". One of the reasons Android has taken off like gangbusters is because it really truly is open source while iOS and WP-7 are certainly not. So the game being played is to stir up a ruckus about Android not being open. The same tactic was used recently when people's hair caught on fire because Google had the ability to nuke malware apps. The story was not "hey, Android is open and safe", the story was that Google was being evil.
I'm currently working on a GPLv2 (for historical reasons) project intended to be part of a Linux distro. Guess what? I don't release the source code until it is ready for alpha and beta testing. Releasing it before basic functionality is in place simply wastes everybody's time and energy. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Google dealing the release of their software until they think it is the best time to release it. If Google released early instead then many of the people bitching and moaning now would have been bitching and moaning about Google releasing code before it was ready.
These unscrupulous tactics have been around for a long time. I'm not surprised that they are being used in this context but I am a little saddened that people seem to keep falling for the same old malarkey.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Android 3 has been released in multiple commercial tablets, including the Motorola Xoom. Binaries have been released, source has not.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I don't believe anything good can come from a single entity holding most of the code everyone uses to communicate with on a personal level.
Honestly though, has anything ever good come from a small bunch of people with complete and ultimate control over a population of source code, cars, state pensions, food or banking?
No, it always ends up collapsing because power attracts psyhcopaths...such as Hitler and idiots like Bill Gates.
It is one of the reasons why open source rules dictate lots and lots of distros of Linux so that if Red Hat goes bad (I mean bought or merged), the Linux Kernel can continue.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Awesome, thanks for the URL. Now let me start compiling this iOS thingy from scratch.. can't wait to upload it to my iPhone :-)
Thanks, now we have nothing on-topic left to discuss. I suggest we devote the rest of this thread to discussions of ponies. I like them stewed, how about you?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Did you read any of the rest of this thread, or the one from yesterday? No, you did not. If you had read any of it, you would know why this is simply Apple PR FUD. Google owns the copyright. The Apache License doesn't require the release of source code. The freedom of the Apache license is the reason that Google is easting Apple's closed source, can't-look-under-the-hood lunch, so that is the thing Apple is going to attack, with lies and distortion if need be.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Have you ever read the Apache license?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
...it's funny how much they sound like a Mervyn's holiday sale commercial ("open-open-open-open") when they're comparing themselves to Apple, but it appears that it's not the general philosophy that's different; it's only the specific parameters that appear to be at play here.
Based on my understanding of the ASL, they have every right to do this. But with this and other recent decisions, they need to STFU about being the most open platform around. Who cares how open it is if modifying your installation breaks your contract with your wireless vendor? Who cares how open software is when one vendor controls what's in the "official" distro? And who cares how open something is when, as soon as critical mass is reached, they suddenly decide to withhold some releases?
Personally, I care more about ongoing supportability. I'd like for the "fragmentation" question to be cleared up enough in the developer community that they are more likely to create Android apps simultaneously with their iOS apps. I'd like for hardware vendors to be forced to support at least a few major updates. If they have to stop yelling, "Open!", that's fine with me.
Of course, that being said, "Open" is a welcome addition, but if there's always an asterisk by it, then it's not a reasonable marketing bullet point.
The CB App. What's your 20?
No, Google can do this because THEY OWN THE CODE in question. They developed Android, not random FOSS people.
The thing they are using from the wider community is the linux kernel (and some tools like gcc), AND THEY HAVE RELEASED THAT CODE. The whole rest of the Android stack was developed in house at Google and they can do whatever the fuck they want with it, be it release the source or not on their own time table.
"The right to do something does not mean doing it is right." William Safire
Uh, I don't know if you know it, but Apple did release their code recently. It was late, I guess, but they did release it.
The CB App. What's your 20?
It's not FUD. Release the source, or you're not an open source contributor, you're an asshole taking advantage of other people's work and contributing nothing back.
That is absolutely not true. I gave myself as an example. Just because a project is open source doesn't mean I have to release all my work all the time. As I said before, AFAIK, Google is not releasing binaries. If you're not releasing binaries then there is nothing wrong with not releasing source.
If the code "isn't ready", then they shouldn't be releasing it at all, much less as part of a tablet that's being sold for $500, ...
As I predicted, people bitching about Google not releasing soon enough are also bitching about Google releasing too soon. It seems pretty obvious to me that the problems with Honeycomb being not ready for primetime were discovered when those tablets were released. Google responded by changing their release policy to be less liberal in order to prevent such problems in the future.
The idea that I have to release any I code I write whenever you want me to release it is ridiculous and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the code is open source or not. If you have a problem it is with the manufacturer you bought your tablet from, not Google. And while you are complaining to them, I suggest you complain to the manufacturers of your other phones and gadgets and for not releasing all their source code whenever you want it.
Complaining about Google because manufacturers downstream from them are actually abiding by the terms of open source licenses on the software they are using is 100% pure unadulterated FUD.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Some of the other well known blogs have their utterly stupid people. I know. Usually the stupid people on Slashdot are of a little higher quality. Not on legal matters though. They are just as stupid as utterly dumb Engadget commenters.
I don't know how you'll manage it, but do try to get this through your thick thick skull:
Google does not have to release the Honeycomb source. Not because they have expensive lawyers or some shit like that. It is because they are not required to.
1. They fucking own the source code they are not releasing. AND even if they did not
2. Apache license does not require it.
Gawd, extreme stupidity is infuriating.
Google can do this and get away with it because it has better lawyers and more influential friends than you do. Every other not-so-non-evil entity that wishes it, too, could simply ignore open source licenses will be watching and quietly cheering Google on from the sidelines.
Just like you can read /. and post what you did because you have better lawyers, right?
(Hint: You don't need better lawyers to do something that's perfectly legal. You also don't need a license to software you own -- licenses are what enable others to do stuff with your code -- you can never, ever even possibly be in violation of any software license to your own code, since the license doesn't apply to you at all. A license is permission to others, not to yourself.)
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Not releasing alpha or beta code, sure. But this is shipping commercial code, from which Google and Motorola are currently deriving income.
If the code isn't ready, it shouldn't be shipping on the Motorola Xoom. If it's shipping on the Motorola Xoom, it should be available.
Google is singled out for things like this because they try to single out MS and Apple for *not* being open. Being open when it suits you for marketing purposes and temporarily closed when it is a competitive advantage makes you a target for stories highlighting the hypocrisy.
yeah but you could fork it and build an entire OS around it(WebOS) or you could fork it and base your supposedly open mobile OS's browser on it.
Linus said recently that open to him wasn't that hardware was open, but you could run out and build your own thing that did what you wanted with the software provided. I couldn't believe it when Linus was basically praising the Apple mindset towards open source.
Contrast Apple open sourcing darwin and webkit over Andy Rubin flipping 180 and saying, "If you want the source for Honeycomb, please ask nicely."
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
It's not FUD. Release the source, or you're not an open source contributor
You mean not an open source contributor to that particular version of that particular product. They've stated that they are going to release that code and given a time for when it will be done, this is entirely fine for ASL licensed code.
you're an asshole taking advantage of other people's work and contributing nothing back.
If that's how you feel then you wouldn't be so fucking stupid as to release code under a permissive Open Source license now would you? People who release code under that type of license are altruistic, they don't care what's done with that code and it's free to be used by anyone however they wish. If you care about how that code is used or how derived works are licensed in the future then use a restrictive license, it's pretty simple.
Where do they claim that?
Android 3 has been released in multiple commercial tablets, including the Motorola Xoom. Binaries have been released, source has not.
And none of those commercial tablets have phone hardware in them.
Which matches up nicely in regards to the part of the Honeycomb source that's stated to be fairly "broken" and not up to release level standards. The phone handling pieces.
For the most part, Google actually gives you all code that runs on your (stock) Android device - Honeycomb has been an exception so far and even that is temporary. For my Android 2.x phone, I can pick and choose out of half a dozen ROMs with varying features and stability, or roll out my own. Apple didn't and doesn't offer anything even remotely like that.
I don't much care for copyleft "Freedom", but openness to me, in pragmatical terms, means the ability to mod my phone, whether on my own or in a community with others. In that sense Android has been far more open, and even Honeycomb still remains more open (you can root Honeycomb devices today without relying on security bugs that get fixed by the next OS update)
As I said before, AFAIK, Google is not releasing binaries.
And you've been told that you're wrong. There's a Xoom sitting on my table right now, running Android 3.0.1 build HRI66 (also known as "Honeycomb"). I've had it for two months now. If it's not running binaries, then I suppose it works by means of pixie dust?
Now Google doesn't have any legal obligation to release the source due to their being the authors and Apache license not being copyleft. But that's a different story.
Those binaries are created and released by the manufacturer, not by Google. They are tailored by each manufacturer for their particular device. This is one of the reasons why Android has been sweeping the industry: each manufacturer has total control over the source code they put on their phones.
Your gripe, (whether legitimate or not) is with the manufacturer who sold you the device, not with Google. Since your complaint seems to be that the manufacturer (horror of horrors) is actually abiding by the terms of the licenses of the software they are using, it seems to lack much legitimacy. Insisting on blaming Google for this is complete FUD.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
If Google doesn't release the source for an "Open Source" OS, then it's not really FOSS.
thanks captain obvious, glad you're here. Honeycomb isn't FOSS, that doesn't mean Android isn't FOSS, same as OSX isn't FOSS doesn't mean FreeBSD isn't FOSS.
Xoom is a "Google experience device". It ships stock Google software, not modified by manufacturer.
I don't have any gripe with Google or blaming them, by the way. I'm confident that they'll have the code out once it's good enough for that. I was merely pointing out that your premise is wrong, and Google does ship the binaries (even if it's done with the aid of the third party).
Code is certainly the reason I bought my Froyo phone, I think it's nice that google released the code. I won't get mad at them unless they reneg on the ice-cream sandwich release. Then I won't buy any more.
Until then, I don't own any honeycomb device nor will I buy.
POKE 36879,8
It seems that people just come here to complain about the news articles.
Exactly, it's a virtual water cooler. We don't talk about what was on reality TV last night, but the cool shit that's happening in the tech world instead. But we still bitch about the office.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It will be licensed under a license, when it hasn't been released, it hasn't been released under a license.
No, I'm not channeling Donald Rumsfeld, its just the license isn't relevant when the software hasn't been released.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Firefox is open source, and daily builds are available. Linux is open source, and daily builds are available. MySQL is open source, and daily builds are available. Apache is open source, and daily builds are available.
All are large, complex programs and platforms, with reputations to maintain and uphold.
Android is "open source" and... Google will release code when they're good and ready.
Further, 3.0 has shipped. 3.1 has shipped. And yet, Google will not release the source code for the current, shipping version, until the NEXT version is available and ships.
Seems to me that they're getting an awful lot of mileage *marketing* themselves as being cool and open -- when they're not.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
IMO the problem is entirely with the manufacturers. I think it is a minor miracle that Google got them to go the open source route at all even though it is in the current limited fashion. You've got to walk before you start flying to other planets.
I was not privy to their discussions but it seems pretty clear the manufacturers were not ready to accept a GPL style license that required them to divulge the changes they had made. The ASL is clearly a compromise. This is a reflection of the age-old debate between "open source" versus "Free software".
You claim that Google is getting a lot of mileage out of appearing to be cool and open. It cuts both ways. Open source software is getting a lot of the same sort of mileage for powering the most popular smartphone OS on the planet. It was certainly within Google's power to have made Android Free and open source, exactly the way you seem to think it should be. The problem is that the manufacturers would baulk at having to comply with a truly Free license. In which case we wouldn't be having this discussion because Android wouldn't be even close to threatening the major players.
Is the Android licensing situation my ideal? No, but IMO we are much better off with Android licensed the way it is then we would have been with a different license such as the GPLv3 because in that case Android would have no significant user base.
I actually think Google deserves the credit for being cool and open that you want to begrudge them. Is Android as free and open as possible? No, but it is a hell of a lot more free and open than every other major phone OS on the market.
IMO, more than anything else, Android is a demonstration that Linux and open source really are ready for prime time and are not just for hobbyists and techies. I'm still totally stoked about Android. As far as the big picture is concerned, it was a giant leap forward for Free and open source software.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
God-dammed hypocrite. This guy's rationale is that if they release Honeycomb now some vendors might try to use on phones. So what? If a hardware manufacturer uses Linux to make a crappy product consumers will simply not buy it. Do you even understand what open means, Andy?
Hmm. I agree the GP is a foam-mouthed radical, but I take issue with the idea that those that choose to use BSD-style licenses are somehow more altruistic than those who use copyleft licenses - in my view, it's less likely that they are being purely altruistic, because they are using a license that they know will curry them favour with their commercial partners. On the flip side, those releasing code under copyleft licenses are doing so in the hope that it will encourage others to give the same gift as a result.
I also take issue with the whole "permissive" / "restrictive" badging - I prefer to think of it as "promiscuous" (goes with anyone, even for money) and "freedom-preserving" ;-)
Motorola XOOM has no binaries on it? The Samsung tablet they gave away at Google I/O has no binaries?
There is a lot of open source Apple code in Android itself. You're just pushing more of Google's anti-Apple FUD.
Android is not the most popular mobile open source project that is Apple WebKit, and the source is available for that. How did WebKit get onto so many more phones than Android and still release the source if the lack of source is the fault of phone makers?
What is with all these stories lately? Apple didn't do this when WE wanted it so they are bad but Google is good.. Today its just the opposite and Google is bad.
its not like any of these companies are withholding anything they are working on it.. they all have a history of ponying up, so give them a damned chance.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's not the way the copyright law work. The principle that lays behind GPL, other license, and the whole rest of software publishing works in a different way.
Basically, the copyright law, in almost every jurisdiction says : you can't make copies of something, unless you own it, or you obtain explicit permission of the one who owns it : i.e. you need a license.
The purpose of the law is to stop copies which weren't allow by the owner (which theoretically could be the author, but most of the time is a separate copyright holder).
If the copyright of the code is held by google, i.e.: they wrote part of it and managed to get the copyright of 3rd party modifications to it (patches, etc.) assigned to them, they can do pretty much everything with it, it's their code, they do what they want with if. Including code the license under different licenses, etc.
It's their code, they do what they want with it, they don't need a license = a permission to make/distribute copies
Only if the code doesn't belong to them, then the copyright law says that they are not allowed to distribute copies, they need a license to do so.
That's the case with the Linux kernel, it doesn't belong to them (there's not even a signle copyright holder). Its avaiilable to them on the terms of the GPL license. If they want to distribute copies of the kernel (like installed on tablets), they have to abid to the license, which asks them to distribute the modifications as well (as they've done with the kernel. They publish them, the modifications just don't get integrated upstream).
Other situation would be to ask the copyright holder for a different license. With the kernel, that would be difficult (no single holder), but that would, for example possible with libraries like Qt : there's 1 single clear copyright holder (Nokia) which clearly can grant commercial license (this busniess was spun-off to Digia). Don't want to play by the GPL or LGPL ? Just ask Digia to grant you a different license and pay them what they ask.
The bulk of android is either Google's (The part they bought and wrote themselves) or licensed under Apache License (patches and modifications written by 3rd parties which didn't assign copyright to Google, etc.) Google can do whatever they want with their part. According to the copyright law, they are the owner, they don't need a license.
With the rest : well its mostly licensed under the Apache license. Which is *NOT* copyleft. When you receive code under APL, you can modify it, publish it, distribute it, *BUT* you're *NOT* required to publish your code and/or modification.
So yeah, google can give the parts of android which are APL licensed to tablet manufacturer, they can install android on tablets and ship it to consumer, AND they are not required to publish the source.
Also something else :
Google could theoretically modify the linux kernel and deploy it only in-house on their own server and, as long as they don't distribute it to 3rd parties and only use it inhouse, they won't be required to publish the code either. The GPL is a *copyright* license (not an EULA). It only kicks in when 3rd party make copies and distribute them, not when they use the code internally without publishing binaries.
(In practice, Google does contribute back modifications they do on the Linux kernel they use on they server. But that's not required by the GPL, because they don't give away or sell the kernel to other people, only install that code base on their own servers).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
They don't have to release code for Apache licensed parts, just the GPLed bits.
The only thing is, it's really done for competitive purposes. OHA members don't really like AOSP because it means they release a product and some chinese OEM down the road gets to compete with them in a month's time.
The "With Google" advantage has narrowed because the "With Google" apps (which include the Market) are so widely pirated that every Android platform has it (without the Market, Android's pretty sparse as 99% of the apps on it aren't available outside the Market).
So I'd guess the code really isn't as bad as Google makes it seem, but it's being restricted more for competitive reasons - the Motorola/Samsung/LG/etc don't want to have their $500 tablets competing against the $100 crap tablets. Or to have a proper build so the $250 Nook Color won't become a serious competitor. Sure a hacked version of 3.0 is out for all sorts of platforms, but it's hacked together.
The real test will be to see if Ice Cream will be released on the same day.
"I think it is a minor miracle that Google got them to go the open source route at all even though it is in the current limited fashion. "
Hardly. Google offered them a free OS back when the iPhone was starting to eat everyone's breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
In effect, they said: "With this, you can either compete... or not. Your choice."
Or to paraphrase another line, "A choice that is no choice, is not a choice."
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Xoom is a "Google experience device"[**]. It ships stock Google software, not modified by manufacturer.
Ah. I finally understand your complaint now. You are pissed because Google didn't give Motorola any Honeycomb source code, they only gave Motorola binaries. I would be pissed too. If that is the case then it is a bloody miracle the Xoom works at all and it is completely explains the sub-optimal user experience.
Boy oh boy Motorola must be really ticked off at Google over this. If what you say is true then I would be very surprised if Motorola every uses Google software again in any device. This must be a huge coup for Apple and Microsoft. With this completely bone-headed maneuver, Google just ruined all the hard work they've done on Android.
I will gladly join forces with you and demand that Google give Motorola the source code they need in order to tune Honeycomb to work with the Xoom.
** BTW: a Google Experience Device has nothing to do with source code, it has everything to do with what apps are installed and whether to UI conforms to certain standards. It would probably be impossible for anyone to make a Google Experience Device without access to the source code that you wildly speculate was withheld.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
in my view, it's less likely that they are being purely altruistic, because they are using a license that they know will curry them favour with their commercial partners.
To what end though?
On the flip side, those releasing code under copyleft licenses are doing so in the hope that it will encourage others to give the same gift as a result.
It's just a different world view i suppose, I've always seen the BSD-style licenses as more altruistic because it's just giving code away freely to be used by anyone for anything without placing any restrictions on what others can do with it. Forcing others to do things my way isn't my idea of freedom.
Well, I'd agree with you 100%, but you called me a foam mouthed radical. LOL
Open Source is the future. To pretend otherwise is just retarded.
And half-assing the FOSS to curry favor while secretly being an evil corporation: Well, that's just evil.
Google needs to review their situation. They need to look farther down the road, and they need to go ahead and embrace the GPLv3. Otherwise they are not the forward looking company they are pretending to be, and they will eventually be supplanted by somebody who is.
That's what this is all about. What's best for the stock holders is future proofing. The GPLv3 is really the only way to guarantee that future proofing.
So for everyone on all sides, stop faking the FOSS:
Release the Code ("done" or not).
Contribute in every way openly and honestly, and transparently.
Fully democratize as much information as possible at all times. Code, everything.
It's not really radical. It's just advanced. I thought this was slashdot, not corporate apologist dot com.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
But then your generosity can be subsumed by somebody for commercial gain, ending the paying forward nature of the initial offering. In my opinion anyone using the BSD license is really just stupid and screwing themselves and the rest of us for no reason. If you use the GPLv3 you are protecting the project indefinitely and and ensuring it will be useful for all future generations.
Forcing people to do that isn't really a bad thing, imho.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Oh please, I'm the guy who invented calling his opponent a corporate shill. Don't try my own tricks on me, Mister. Nobody needs protection from your harsh vitriol, because you don't know how to aim it, and it's not very effective. You are just another loud mouth with an opinion. There are billions just like you. You are not fighting the good fight. You are not advancing the cause of human freedom, you are not defending open source, you are just yelling inanities.
Obviously, you are a shill for Apple, trying anything to take down your corporate rival, Google. Nice try, but no one is buying what you are selling.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But then your generosity can be subsumed by somebody for commercial gain, ending the paying forward nature of the initial offering.
So? Why would i care how they benefit from it? I released it as free code to be used by anyone however they want. I'm not going to force restrictions on them.
In my opinion anyone using the BSD license is really just stupid and screwing themselves and the rest of us for no reason.
They aren't screwing anyone, the code is there and it is always free. I'm not releasing something as free just to get something in return.
If you use the GPLv3 you are protecting the project indefinitely and and ensuring it will be useful for all future generations.
The project is always free, the BSD license doesn't mean a project can suddenly become non-free, just that anyone can benefit from free code whether they have the same world view or not. I'm not about to start only helping those who think like i do.