Are Third-Party Android Vendors Violating the GPL?

Android by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 11:23 · Score: -1, Troll

Seriously. Every day there is story about some new Android problems. Malware, GPL violations, rooted phones being blocked, Google not releasing the source code for new versions, people pirating apps so developing apps is useless, hardware fragmentation, phones saving location data and leaking all of your stuff to Google. Seriously just do a search for "android" on slashdot. Every freaking day something.

Last winter I was seriously considering getting an Android phone. I was thinking between iPhone and Android. I liked the openness of Android. But then the problems started showing up. Now I wouldn't touch it anymore. And having lived around the world and seeing lots of poverty too, I don't think the underlying system license and GPL really is top priority for lots of people. They just want something that works, they don't have time worry about those times. And now that I've grown too and have to support my family, frankly I dont either. Maybe as a teen, but not anymore.

Re:Android by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 11:24 · Score: 0

So wtf is your point? That your angsty nerdrage cannot be contained by a mere button-down shirt?
GPL violations occur from MANY companies, not just those using Android.
Re:Android by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 11:32 · Score: 1, Informative

Seriously. Every day there is story about some new Android problems. Malware, GPL violations, rooted phones being blocked, Google not releasing the source code for new versions, people pirating apps so developing apps is useless, hardware fragmentation, phones saving location data and leaking all of your stuff to Google. Seriously just do a search for "android" on slashdot. Every freaking day something.
Well it is the biggest smartphone platform in the world. iOS is a close second and naturally there are always stories about it too, the arbitrary app approval process, changing app guidelines, security issues, phones saving location data, hardware issues (odd since they maintain so few different configurations).
Re:Android by MrHanky · 2011-05-23 11:34 · Score: 2

You sound like you must be really scared of this internet thing.
Re:Android by RyuhoKudo · 2011-05-23 11:36 · Score: 1

I just hear grumpy old man talk. You could have saved all of us time by just saying "I'm too old for this shit, I need something that works so I got an iPhone."
Re:Android by Samantha+Wright · 2011-05-23 11:51 · Score: 0

This may be a little premature, but you sound more than a bit like an astroturfer with anonymous talk like that. No offense or anything.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Android by xwizbt · 2011-05-23 11:54 · Score: 0

Ignore the haters. I, and many others, concur. Android is a deathtrap of viruses, harvesting, trojans and misinformation. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. The opposite of a walled garden is surely an entirely open one, and unless you go round with the hoe, the weeds will grow. Apologies for rhyming; 'cause it's true. Equip Gran with a new 'droid tablet, and watch her money slowly be sapped from her account, or give her a new iPad and watch her shop at the App Store. Super stuff - no credit card drainage, no worries about trojans, no viruses. Sorted.
Re:Android by xwizbt · 2011-05-23 11:56 · Score: 0

Yeah, but the arguments about iOS are about how they're stopping people doing dodgy things. The arguments about Android are about how people are running amok, able to do whatever they want despite Google. Never mind which allows you your freedom - you are not the average user. Which one - iOS or Android - is the one you choose to keep pictures of your grandkids on?
Re:Android by peragrin · 2011-05-23 11:58 · Score: 1

the only good reason not to get android is because Manufacturers aren't sending out updates a quarter as fast as they should, meaning you have to root the phone to get current security updates inside of a 6 month time scale.
New google movie features means that if you want google Movie means you can't have security updates.
One would think Google should have thought of that. The primary reason to root is to get around either stupid carrier lockout restrictions, or to upgrade your phone for the latest security updates in a timely fashion.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Android by cavreader · 2011-05-23 12:01 · Score: 1

Add to the fact the 99% percent of the users could give a shit about the problems surrounding the source code used in their phones. This issue resonates in the techie community but has little impact on which phone a person chooses.
Re:Android by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 12:02 · Score: 0

You could have saved us a lot of time by simply not saying that. Do you have a point to make?
Re:Android by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 12:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Google pulls malware from the market. Apple stops people from putting apps into their market because they don't like them. There is a huge difference there. As an average user, you can still do everything you need to do. Security/system updates are there for everyone. It's open sourced so people can find the issues instead of hiding under a rock hoping someone doesn't find the flaws. The average user can just plug the phone into any computer and copy the files into the phone without having to use a computer with itunes to load the picture into the phone. Go back to kneeing at the feet of your lord and master steve jobs and keep drinking the kool-aid. Don't think, just regurgitate what your master tells you.
Re:Android by Cwix · 2011-05-23 12:16 · Score: 1

Astroturfers typically have user names... How else are they supposed to get credit for their work.

--
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Re:Android by ScrewMaster · 2011-05-23 12:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Which one - iOS or Android - is the one you choose to keep pictures of your grandkids on?
That's obvious. Android. I want to be sure that I'll always be able to get to those pictures, and not have them under the thumb of a megalomaniacal sociopath.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Android by similar_name · 2011-05-23 12:20 · Score: 1

Malware, GPL violations, rooted phones being blocked, Google not releasing the source code for new versions, people pirating apps so developing apps is useless, hardware fragmentation, phones saving location data and leaking all of your stuff to Google.
Malware - I would assume a more open environment would give way to more malware than a walled garden for apps. If you're going to allow people to install what they want you will have malware (how many instances are design flaws and how many are end user approved I don't know). That's a pro vs con that is certainly worth considering but would ultimately come down to personal preference/needs.

GPL violations - I don't think this one is necessarily fair since for market share there aren't any alternatives that have/use the GPL to violate. One could argue it's a problem within the Android market but as pro vs con compared to other phones there's nothing that makes it a con. Certainly those involved with the code that's being used under violation should register their complaints and take legal action if necessary.

rooted phones being blocked - Android's not alone here. But Google's 'honesty' is amusing. Again, I'm not saying it's not a problem. Merely pointing out that compared to other options it's not much different.

Google not releasing the source code for new versions - Again a problem that only applies to Google because they're the only one (and those mentioned in TFA) that's expected to.

people pirating apps so developing apps is useless - Similar to the malware problem except affecting developers more where malware affects end-users. So open vs controlled and the pros and cons that come with it. Personal preference and I could go either way.

hardware fragmentation - Good and bad as with most things. Hardware fragmentation to one person is bleeding edge to another (I recognize the merits of that statement depend on a market where market fragmentation is due to technological advance vs technological control).

phones saving location data and leaking all of your stuff to Google - I don't know that I'd use the word leaking but the end result is the same.I will acknowledge that accepting any Google product probably means you should weigh the value of your privacy against it.

I think your thoughts are personally valid and valid for many but I wanted to add why others would still see Android as the 'best' choice if not the ideal one.
Re:Android by ScrewMaster · 2011-05-23 12:20 · Score: 1

Ignore the haters. I, and many others, concur. Android is a deathtrap of viruses, harvesting, trojans and misinformation. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. The opposite of a walled garden is surely an entirely open one, and unless you go round with the hoe, the weeds will grow. Apologies for rhyming; 'cause it's true. Equip Gran with a new 'droid tablet, and watch her money slowly be sapped from her account, or give her a new iPad and watch her shop at the App Store. Super stuff - no credit card drainage, no worries about trojans, no viruses. Sorted.
Uh ... what? Honestly, why are you even in a discussion about Android if you're not a hater? Go back to your walled garden and bask in the glow of Steve. The rest of us will continue to get things done.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Android by ColdWetDog · 2011-05-23 12:33 · Score: 1

Which one - iOS or Android - is the one you choose to keep pictures of your grandkids on?
That's obvious. Android. I want to be sure that I'll always be able to get to those pictures, and not have them under the thumb of a megalomaniacal sociopath.
Right. JPEG, TIFF, UNIX - all products of a megolomaniacal sociopath. Calm down. Have some Kool Aid. Relax.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Android by rogerdugans · 2011-05-23 12:38 · Score: 1

roflmao
The funny thing about this one is how exactly it is wrong.
There is no possible way for it to be more completely backwards.

--
Linux computers, watercooled, photography
Re:Android by oakgrove · 2011-05-23 13:09 · Score: 2

Depending on how they are detecting root, you can always do a quick nandroid backup and then restore a non rooted firmware for the duration of your movie then just reverse the process. It is easier than it sounds and can be fairly well automated down to a sub 5 minute one-click process. The only real fly in the ointment is if they are detecting an unlocked bootloader or just the os itself. Of course, this will get razor sharp focus from very sharp hackers so expect a solution in 5...4...3...

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Android by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 14:24 · Score: 0

Equip Gran with a new 'droid tablet, and watch her money slowly be sapped from her account, or give her a new iPad and watch her shop at the App Store. Super stuff - no credit card drainage, no worries about trojans, no viruses. Sorted.
Yeah you can buy from anywhere on the net and give out your credit card details and it doesn't matter who you give them to because you're using an iPad and Apple will protect you! Yay Apple! Thanks for watching over me 3
Re:Android by BluBrick · 2011-05-23 15:26 · Score: 1

You sound like you must be really scared of this internet thing.
Nah, it's just a fad - it'll pass.

--
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
Re:Android by Cyberllama · 2011-05-23 18:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

You've been taken in by Apple's FUD.
Both the App store and Android market are curated experiences, though Apple's version is obviously a lot more restricted. They have both rules, they limit what can be submitted, and they remove things that violate those rules. Both have had problems with apps doing more than they claimed to do that resulted in apps being removed after these violations were discovered. Pretty much every story about Android malware has a corresponding iOS story if you've been paying attention. But similarly, neither platform has any *significant* issues. The recent instance of Google kill switching some apps that violated their rules were not actual Malware apps, just apps posted by a security researcher to demonstrate that people will blindly install apps that ask permission to access contacts/location/etc even though they have no legitimate reason to be doing so. They weren't actually stealing user data, just demonstrating how it could be done.
What makes Android "open" is that if you don't like Google's rules, you can make your own App store like Amazon has done or you can just sideload anything you want. It's worth noting that just as many iOS malware stories involve jailbroken phones, most of the Google Malware stories have involved side-loading because like Apple, Google *DOES* curate the Android Market to keep Malware out and, though both have let some shady pieces of software through, both companies have done a pretty good job of keeping it out. Most of the malware that has slipped through on both platforms is just a matter of people not paying any attention to the fact that the Bobble Head app they just installed for some reason requires permission to access the contact list . . .
P.S. It's funny that you mention "which platform do you want to store your pictures on' because I recently had to do tech support for a relative who was quite saddened to discover that her iOS firmware upgrade had wiped all her pictures (which included many she had taken of her new puppy when it was growing). As an iPhone user myself, I've had this same bug happen to me in the past (when i upgraded my 3gs to firmware 4.0 before I got my iphone 4). I did the firmware upgrade and the pictures were simply gone afterwards . . .
Re:Android by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 19:16 · Score: 1

and the problem, both times, was not in the iphone.

why in hell are you using the iphone as a backup solution for your important stuff?

you should have known better.
Re:Android by DrXym · 2011-05-23 23:17 · Score: 1

Ignore the haters. I, and many others, concur. Android is a deathtrap of viruses, harvesting, trojans and misinformation. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. The opposite of a walled garden is surely an entirely open one, and unless you go round with the hoe, the weeds will grow. Apologies for rhyming; 'cause it's true. Equip Gran with a new 'droid tablet, and watch her money slowly be sapped from her account, or give her a new iPad and watch her shop at the App Store. Super stuff - no credit card drainage, no worries about trojans, no viruses. Sorted.
That's very melodramatic and utterly ludicrous. You make it sound like Android is infested with malware when it's a tiny problem, probably contracted by idiots getting their apps from some dodgy Chinese app store. More fool them.
Get your apps from the standard marketplace, exercise a little common sense and you will be perfectly safe. If you don't think granny is capable of managing a smart phone, don't buy her one, or install the apps for her, or educate her on common ways that malware may masquerade as useful software.
I'd add that neither both Apple or Google could ever be safe from malware. It would be trivial to write a seemingly useful app, wait for it to gather a lot of users and then prime it with a command during its normal cloud based calls which activates its malicious behaviour.
Re:Android by Reapman · 2011-05-24 04:20 · Score: 1

Can you provide any facts to back up your claims? The only case I had where money was sapped from my account was... iTunes. Somehow my account that hasn't been accessed in months by me suddenly had activity - note I only accessed iTunes on a OSX Box. So much for security! Apple provided me GREAT service and got it fixed up, but there's an example of some actual facts. I haven't had a single penny stolen from me for using the Android Market - of course if you setup "gran" on a chinese market and tell her not to use the official Android Market you might have a point, but then you also might be as dumb as a sack of hammers.
Re:Android by Cyberllama · 2011-05-24 07:13 · Score: 1

Way to strawman, bro. How did you go from "the pictures I had on my iPhone got deleted in the firmware upgrade due to a bug" to "using my iPhone to backup important stuff"?
Nobody with sense would keep important files on any kind of phone as a backup, android or iOS--makes no difference in that discussion. I'm just talking about the pictures I took with the phone, and therefore naturally on the phone. You do understand that phones are cameras too these days, right?
Re:Android by ScrewMaster · 2011-05-25 21:49 · Score: 1

Which one - iOS or Android - is the one you choose to keep pictures of your grandkids on?
That's obvious. Android. I want to be sure that I'll always be able to get to those pictures, and not have them under the thumb of a megalomaniacal sociopath.
Right. JPEG, TIFF, UNIX - all products of a megolomaniacal sociopath. Calm down. Have some Kool Aid. Relax.
Hey, he started it. Funny though ... usually it's the Apple fanboys that get accused of drinking the Kool Aid.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

check before posting... by Lead+Butthead · 2011-05-23 11:25 · Score: 1

Google's refusal to not release Honeycomb source code

Dude, you're not making any sense. I assume you mean refusal to release...?

--
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?

Re:check before posting... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 12:37 · Score: -1

its all niggertalk to me
Re:check before posting... by Threni · 2011-05-23 20:53 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that I do not find it hard to not disbelieve what you're saying here.

Kosher code? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 11:26 · Score: 1, Funny

What the fuck does that even mean?

Re:Kosher code? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 11:33 · Score: 3, Informative

It means the code is not written with mixing meat and milk.
Re:Kosher code? by bluemonq · 2011-05-23 11:35 · Score: 1

The code isn't kosher; the behavior is. Kosher has come to be an acceptable synonym for "legit", "okay", and "cricket".
Re:Kosher code? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 11:41 · Score: 0

It contains no pork, and does not mix milk with meat.
Re:Kosher code? by sexconker · 2011-05-23 12:05 · Score: 0

What the fuck does that even mean?
While kosher's actual definition doesn't fit here, it's clear by context that they intend it to mean cromulent.
Re:Kosher code? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 18:29 · Score: 0

It means you don't shellfishly keep it to yourself.

Kosher code by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 11:28 · Score: 0

"Google's refusal to not release Honeycomb source code is kosher "

Look, its bad enough they have to throw in these long ass licenses (GPL/MIT/Apache etc).
Now they have rabbis standing by? Are you kidding me?

Re:Kosher code by lucm · 2011-05-23 13:39 · Score: 2

> Now they have rabbis standing by?
A friend of mine is working in a yeast factory and they actually have a rabbi standing by. I would love to see their ISO-9000 procedures for whatever the rabbi is doing.

--
lucm, indeed.

A more concise summary by girlintraining · 2011-05-23 11:31 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Fact 1: GPL requires source code to be released.
Fact 2: License does not specify when it has to be released.

Reaction: ZOMFG, they're violating the license! Raise the pitch forks and aaaaah. Burn them at the stake! Open source means xyzzy, and stuff, and and and... it's just wrong

Rational Resolution: Update the license to have a reasonable time constraint.

Irrational Resolution: Google is evil and must be punished.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled flamefest, already in progress.....

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:A more concise summary by exomondo · 2011-05-23 11:35 · Score: 1

Fact 1: GPL requires source code to be released. Fact 2: License does not specify when it has to be released.
The GPL does specify when the code has to be released, it's just the ASL that doesn't.
Re:A more concise summary by exomondo · 2011-05-23 11:37 · Score: 1

I just realised I didn't clarify that the ASL doesn't require source code release at all.
Re:A more concise summary by Microlith · 2011-05-23 11:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

License does not specify when it has to be released.
The GPL does. It must be delivered to whoever the binaries are given to. Playing stupid weasel games to disenfranchise people is idiotic (well, unless you hate open source and like screwing your customers.)
The rest of your post is ridiculous.
Re:A more concise summary by wrook · 2011-05-23 11:46 · Score: 4, Informative

The GPL specifies very clearly when the source code has to be released. The vendor has a few choices:
1) They can release the source code with the binary
2) They can accompany the binary with a written offer to supply the souce code on request for a period of not less than 2 years.
Generally, vendors tend to do the second, but I have a couple of devices where I was given a CD containing the source code along with the device. Free software projects usually provide the source code and binary download at the same time.
My understanding is that these vendors are neither supplying the source code with the binary nor accompanying the binary with a written offer for the source code. If that is true, then they are in violation of the GPL. The reason for requiring the source code at the same time as the binary is that offering the source code at some indefinite point in the future is useless. If I have a problem that requires the source code, waiting an indefinite amount of time doesn't help me.
Re:A more concise summary by SETIGuy · 2011-05-23 12:14 · Score: 1

Fact 1: GPL requires source code to be released.
Fact 2: License does not specify when it has to be released.
The license doesn't stipulate that you can delay. Under GPL v2 a commercial distributor has two options: Option 1) Distribute source code with the binary. That's pretty clear in not allowing for delay. Option 2) With the source code, distribute an offer to provide source to anyone at no more than the cost of reproduction. I don't think any reasonable court could read those two option, in the same paragraph and conclude that the distributor could delay.
However, it's unlikely that anyone but an author of the code in question has the legal standing to sue for breach of the license. The license is an agreement between the copyright holder and the distributors. The most an end user could do is bring it to the attention of the copyright holders.
As always, me no lawyer.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:A more concise summary by LingNoi · 2011-05-23 15:50 · Score: 1

You're second "fact" is incorrect. The code has to be released with the binary and any user may request the source code if not provided. Hence you are wrong about this, you can't delay releasing the source code to users that already have the binary.
Also no one is raising pitchforks apart from some news articles that as they always do attempt to blow something out of all proportion.
Re:A more concise summary by LingNoi · 2011-05-23 15:53 · Score: 1

I just noticed that your first "fact" is wrong too. The GPL only requires the source code to be released if you give it to someone else and only on improvements to the GPL code which may be separate from your proprietary code.
Re:A more concise summary by BlueScreenO'Life · 2011-05-23 15:59 · Score: 1

It must be delivered to whoever the binaries are given to.
Yes, and the GPL'ed portion of the Android source code (the kernel) must be somewhere on the net (otherwise they are in violation of the GPL).
It just isn't very useful without the rest of the software stack, which is under Apache and does not have to be released. Whether that's ethical and smart or not is another matter.
Re:A more concise summary by BlueScreenO'Life · 2011-05-23 16:15 · Score: 1

OK, after reading TFA, the complain does make some sense, it's about some device-custom kernel sources not being released.
Re:A more concise summary by Cyberllama · 2011-05-23 18:38 · Score: 1

Are the vendors actaully changing anything in the Kernel? It seems like most of the changes they are making are just UI skinning . . .
Re:A more concise summary by wrook · 2011-05-23 19:24 · Score: 1

They don't have to change anything. If they are distributing the binary, they are responsible for also distributing the source code (possibly on request, but they have to supply a written offer to supply the source code in that case). Even if the upstream is supplying the source code freely, this does not absolve the distributor of the responsibility. I think this aspect of the GPL is confusing for some people and may be one of the reasons that the companies are not in compliance. It's possible that they merely need to be reminded what they should be doing. BTW, since I am at it, they only need to supply the source code to *their customers*. They don't have to make the code generally available.
In any case, I suspect that you are a bit confused anyway, because the UI skinning isn't happening at the kernel level. The UI code isn't covered by the GPL. This discussion is only focussing on kernel issues that are covered by the GPL. So a vendor may have to make some changes in order for the kernel to work properly with their hardware. It's important that customers get access to this code, because without it they can't create a working version of the kernel for their hardware (supposing they could load it in the first place... sigh...)
Re:A more concise summary by Tim+C · 2011-05-24 00:38 · Score: 1

The GPL does. It must be delivered to whoever the binaries are given to.
No, it must (at least) be made available on demand to whoever the binaries are given to. The easiest (and preferred) way of fulfilling this obligation is to deliver the source along with the binaries, but that is by no means an absolute requirement.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:A more concise summary by Andy+Dodd · 2011-05-24 01:20 · Score: 1

Yes, they're nearly all making small tweaks for their specific hardware.

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?

IOW by kmdrtako · 2011-05-23 11:34 · Score: 5, Funny

"Google's refusal to not release Honeycomb source..."

I know that you believe you understand what you think you wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what you wrote is not what you meant.

Re:IOW by ZPWeeks · 2011-05-23 12:29 · Score: 1

I guess this post should have been from the checking-it-thrice dept.
Re:IOW by Odin's+Raven · 2011-05-23 15:07 · Score: 1

I know that you believe you understand what you think you wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what you wrote is not what you meant.

Inconceivable!

--
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
Re:IOW by bryan1945 · 2011-05-23 17:31 · Score: 1

I don't think you understand what that word means.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:IOW by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 17:51 · Score: 0

Hey, stop mixing languages while hes at it, kosher is not an english word.
Jag vet not heller why he uses a judiskt ord like Kosher in the middle of en mening.
Re:IOW by BorisAmmerlaan · 2011-05-23 21:52 · Score: 1

Inigo, is that you?

No huge shock there. by Microlith · 2011-05-23 11:35 · Score: 2

Google has explicitly made decisions to minimize the presence of open source (rather, copyleft) software in the purview of device vendors that utilize Android. Only a handful of bits (kernel, bluez, couple others) are actually GPL'd; everything else is Apache and doesn't need to be released.

I can see some companies just assuming they don't need to do anything at all (or like various vendors, they sit around and don't release the source for weeks.) Google certainly doesn't encourage openness and cooperation from their partners, let alone from random companies that grab the sources from the AOSP.

Re:No huge shock there. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 18:25 · Score: 0

Google has explicitly made decisions to minimize the presence of open source (rather, copyleft) software in the purview of device vendors that utilize Android. Only a handful of bits (kernel, bluez, couple others) are actually GPL'd; everything else is Apache and doesn't need to be released.
I can see some companies just assuming they don't need to do anything at all (or like various vendors, they sit around and don't release the source for weeks.) Google certainly doesn't encourage openness and cooperation from their partners, let alone from random companies that grab the sources from the AOSP.
Really? You think google is minimizing the presence open source because they use apache licensing? Does http://http://source.android.com/ look like a closed source project? Nearly every android device in existence has a cryogen port. Android has a huge open source following.
Re:No huge shock there. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-24 01:42 · Score: 0

This story has nothing to do with Honeycomb userland, per se. It's not very clear from how it's written, but the complaint is that vendors are not releasing their changes to the Linux kernel for their devices.

What about game emulators? by t0qer · 2011-05-23 11:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's a rash of game emulators based on GPL code that is for sale in the andoid market. I actually purchased one "nesnoid" but later while I was browsing around for SNES emu's I found SNES9X for android.

The description for it on the market said, "DON'T PAY ANY OF THESE CLOWNS FOR SELLING YOU GPL CODE!"

It just doesn't happen with kernels or OS components, it happens ALOT with applications. Another example I found was a WEP cracker. There was one (name escapes me atm) for $10 advertising "GET FREE WIFI ANYWHERE", while WEP cracker stated "These guys are ripping you off, their code is based on ngcrack and a few other OSS libraries and they're not giving you the source"

I understand that the GPL allows some recoup of costs for development and distribution, but at all times the source must be available for free. I'm sure THAT list of companies is much larger than the one Matthew lists on his page.

Re:What about game emulators? by Junta · 2011-05-23 11:48 · Score: 3, Informative

I understand that the GPL allows some recoup of costs for development and distribution, but at all times the source must be available for free.
Actually, you only *need* to provide source to those who you provide binaries. So if your binaries require 20 dollars, you must provide the source to anyone who legitimately gets your binaries, but no more.
Of course, they can subsequently turn around and redistribute your source at will.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:What about game emulators? by rahvin112 · 2011-05-23 12:13 · Score: 1

The GPL doesn't prohibit the sale of any product containing GPL code. The only requirement is that the source be made available to those you sell it to. As long as these vendors are making the source available to purchasers they are in full compliance with the GPL.
Might shock you to learn but every one of those PDF vendors that sell PDF printers are in fact selling the GPL PDF code in a windows driver. As long as they provide the source to the GPL bits they aren't in violation. The GPL has no statements about the sale of products with GPL code, you just can't stop someone that purchased the product from compiling it and selling it themselves. I'm always amazed when someone asserts a GPL violation because someone is selling GPL products which is absolutely not prohibited by the license.
Re:What about game emulators? by SETIGuy · 2011-05-23 12:17 · Score: 1

Actually, you only *need* to provide source to those who you provide binaries.
That's only true is you provide source with the binaries. If you do not provide source with the binaries, you must provide with the binaries an offer to supply the source to anyone who requests it.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:What about game emulators? by Edmund+Blackadder · 2011-05-23 13:08 · Score: 1

"The GPL has no statements about the sale of products with GPL code,"
That is because it is assumed that when you sell a device with GPL code on it, you are distributing the GPL code which means that the GPL applies. When a store sells a computer with a copy of Windows on it, they are distributing a copy of Windows and they have to pay for the privilege and follow any contractual obligations Microsoft requires. The GPL works the same way.
Re:What about game emulators? by msauve · 2011-05-23 13:37 · Score: 2

"If you do not provide source with the binaries, you must provide with the binaries an offer to supply the source to anyone who requests it."

It depends on the version of the GPL. For GPL3, you're incorrect:

You may convey a covered work in object code form ... provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source ...[if distributed in a physical product, then] accompanied by a written offer, ... to give anyone who possesses the object code ... a copy of the Corresponding Source ... [If you convey] the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge.

So, there is no requirement to offer source to anyone, only those who legitimately possess the object code.

Contrast that with GPL2:

Accompany it with a written offer ... to give any third party...

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:What about game emulators? by exomondo · 2011-05-23 14:29 · Score: 1

The description for it on the market said, "DON'T PAY ANY OF THESE CLOWNS FOR SELLING YOU GPL CODE!"
But you're allowed to sell software that uses GPL code.
Re:What about game emulators? by LingNoi · 2011-05-23 16:01 · Score: 1

Which is why you sell the first copy for a million dollars, i'm a genius!
Re:What about game emulators? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 17:22 · Score: 0

>I understand that the GPL allows some recoup of costs for development and distribution, but at all times the source must be available for free
No where in GPL does it say the source code should be available on a public web page. But they should provide you it if you ask.
Re:What about game emulators? by julesh · 2011-05-23 17:58 · Score: 1

So, there is no requirement to offer source to anyone, only those who legitimately possess the object code.
OTOH, anyone can legitimately possess the object code, because the original recipient who paid you for it is free to provide as many copies of it as they want to anyone they like, as long as they accompany it with a copy of your written offer. Theoretically, you could demand to see that copy of the written offer (or some other evidence that they have a copy of the object code), but it hardly seems worth it.
Re:What about game emulators? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 18:26 · Score: 0

Which is why you sell the first copy for a million dollars, ...
... over Kickstarter, e.g.
Re:What about game emulators? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 18:41 · Score: 0

However, if I don't make an offer to supply source code later and instead I transfer only whole bundles, object and source code, then I don't have to deal with anyone except the people I supplied with the code. If I make such clean cut, then i can make deal with my customers that I will sell only a limited number of copies (I can't impose additional restrictions on recipients, but GPL says nothing about the conveyor willingly accepting restriction on himself) and request adequate compensation (recuperation of my costs and modest profit on top) for it. In effect, that is making artificially scarce resource out of the code, or more accurately, recognizing the fact that, prior to its dissemination, information is scarce .
Re:What about game emulators? by Cyberllama · 2011-05-23 18:46 · Score: 1

This seems to be most common scenario:
1) Project A is GPL, releases binaries, releases code. It's totally free.
2) Project B is based on Project A. It sells binaries, does not release code.
3) However, while project B might change the name, they don't make any real modifications to the code. They're just selling the same crap you could get free elsewhere.
Since Project B doesn't have any modifications over Project A, and Project A's source code is widely available, is Project B off the hook when it comes to releasing the source code?
This is extremely common, and as far as I can tell, it's legal--though slimy. I can't abide any business model which depends on ignorance--in this case ignorance that the exact same product is already available for free under a different name.
Re:What about game emulators? by dudpixel · 2011-05-23 18:59 · Score: 1

Correct, but it still makes you a clown, because your customers could get for free what you are trying to charge for...

--
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Re:What about game emulators? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 19:20 · Score: 0

No. Project B in your example has to include the source, or a written offer to provide the source.
It doesn't matter if they changed it or not. They distributed it, so they have to provide it.
Re:What about game emulators? by exomondo · 2011-05-23 19:23 · Score: 1

There was a story a little while ago about a guy charging for Blender (which he renamed to something else) but had all the relevant licensing info at the bottom of the page.
Re:What about game emulators? by TheRaven64 · 2011-05-23 22:43 · Score: 2

More or less, yes. Well, not a million dollars, but that's how I get paid to write Free Software (usually BSDL). The company that actually needs the feature pays for it. It's then distributed to everyone who uses the software for free. If someone else needs another feature, they pay for it. Everyone benefits, and the people who paid for specific features pay a lot less than they would if they had to pay for the entire codebase to be implemented.
It's a fairly simple model, you just charge for the difficult bit (writing the software) not for the easy bit (duplicating the software). The problem with off-the-shelf proprietary software is that they try to do it the other way around. They write the software for free, and then try to make people pay them a lot for producing a copy of the software. They then find themselves undercut by pirates, who can copy the software for free.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:What about game emulators? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-24 02:20 · Score: 0

But you don't have the right to be paid by more than one user.
Re:What about game emulators? by greed · 2011-05-24 02:42 · Score: 1

This is exactly why the best thing to do is: include the source with the binaries. Then you've trivially achieved your GPL source obligation, you don't have to run download servers for an unknowable future time (3 years after the last person gets a binary... but the offer is transitive if the work isn't modified), you don't even have to worry about keeping that particular version of source around.
So that's what we do at my company: I set up the tarballs (and patches I add locally) so that our distribution system grabs the corresponding source for the binaries it ships. After that, if someone chucks a source file, it's not on us to replace it. (Though our retention period is in excess of 7 years for shipped code, so we certainly _would_.)
Re:What about game emulators? by SETIGuy · 2011-05-24 05:11 · Score: 1

So, there is no requirement to offer source to anyone, only those who legitimately possess the object code.
Correct, but since you can't place requirements on redistribution of the object code most people would end up assuming that anyone who requests is in possession of the object code. It's easy enough just to set up a public repository for the code and be done with it.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:What about game emulators? by msauve · 2011-05-24 05:32 · Score: 1

"you can't place requirements on redistribution of the object code"

Not in theory, but in fact you can from a practical sense. See Red Hat.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:What about game emulators? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-24 06:48 · Score: 0

Your written offer would not cover everyone the recipient that distributes would provide their own written offer
Re:What about game emulators? by Cyberllama · 2011-05-24 20:39 · Score: 1

d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
As far as I can tell, they only need to provide a link where the source may be found. There's no reason, as far as I can see, why said link couldn't just be a link to the original project they ripped off which has the original source code. I have no idea if any of these fly-by-night developers actaully do that, since I don't actually read any of the text they put in their license agreements.
As for the primary story here, my understanding of the system that was in place was this: Google hosts the source repository at android.com (source.android.com if you want a direct link). If manufacturers make changes, they submit them Google. Google may choose to roll them into the official release or not, but either way those submissions are still available from Google as the central android code repository. I feel like as long as this is happening, and the manufacturers give you a link to android.com at some point, they're probably fulfilling their obligations. I'm not sure they actually need to do anything beyond including that link, which seriously, has got to be there somewhere buried in all the hundreds of screens you have to click through or on some "about" page in the set up.

Answer: Yes by larry+bagina · 2011-05-23 11:36 · Score: 0

A better question: why are you phrasing it as a question? Some android manufacturers are violating the Linux GPL and nobody really cares. Hoo-ray, linux "won", whatever that means.

--
Do you even lift?

These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.