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."
"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.
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.