Slashdot Mirror
Are Third-Party Android Vendors Violating the GPL?
jfruhlinger writes "Google's refusal to not release Honeycomb source code is kosher because the code in question is released under the Apache license. But the kernel at the heart of Android is GPL'd, which means that code must be released. Google has actually been a good citizen in this regard — but many third-party Android vendors, not so much. While Asus has released their code, there are a host of companies that seem to have not done so, and Matthew Garrett is maintaining a list."
It means the code is not written with mixing meat and milk.
"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.
You sound like you must be really scared of this internet thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just search for HTC and GPL on Google or Twitter. Need I say more?
> 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.
Well aren't you nice. Welcome to human language. Meanings change over time. For example, the meaning of "nice".
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 . . .
From my Understanding you don't need to keep your Source as part of the main download area. You could in theory take a mailed letter request for GPL source and then you fax over the source code and they are in compliance. Sure it doesn't follow the spirit of the GPL but it follows the words.
The part that actually gets on my nerves are the people who are rabid in enforcing the GPL are often the same people who support piracy of closed source software, or breaking into companies networks to prove some lame point. If you want people to follow your license you need to bring out an olive branch and support theirs too.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.