Slashdot Mirror
Remix OS in Violation of GPL and Apache Licenses (tlhp.cf)
An anonymous reader writes: You may have heard recently of the Remix OS, a fork of Android that targets desktop computing. The operating system, which was created by former Google employees and features a traditional desktop layout in addition to the ability to run Android apps, was previewed on Ars Technica a few weeks ago, but it was not actually released for end-users to download until earlier this week.
Now that Remix OS has been released, The Linux Homefront Project is reporting that the Android-based operating system, for which source code is not readily available, violates both the GPL and the Apache License. The RemixOS installer includes a "Remix OS USB Tool" that is really a re-branded copy of popular disk imaging tool UNetbootin, which falls under the GPL. Additionally, browsing through the install image files reveals that the operating system is based on the Apache Licensed Android-x86 project. From the article: "Output is absolutely clear – no differences! No authors, no changed files, no trademarks, just copy-paste development." Is this a blatant disregard for the GPL and Apache licenses by an optimistic startup, or were the authors too eager to release that they forgot to provide access to the repo?
Yep.
Just reading the comments makes it clear they have the Unetbootin developers' blessing, and the Android-x86 developers are fine with it too.
This is a minor screw-up, I suspect. Not quite a non-story but not deserving this kind of rant.
"If I could find an android desktop os that would work on intel chips, I would switch our school district over in a heartbeat."
Just WOW. Please tell me you arent actually in charge of anything. Android is UTTER SHIT compared to what is available on x86/intel. Its not even CLOSE to comparable. Its like having a banquet in front of you and saying 'nah, ill go with the Jack in the Box'. Please explain how you would MANAGE a network full of android devices in any way similar to a real desktop and network OS.
Good-bye
They have to provide a copy of the source code on request.
There's no time constraint how quickly they must respond to a request.
There's no requirement to provide (direct) access to the repository.
Waiting until summer vacation and then emailing the source-code to those who bothered to put forth a request as a split base-64-encoded compressed tarball is fine.
Well if your school was using enterprise version of windows, as you should be, and a WSUS, you wouldn't ever see the upgrade to win10 nag. So... you are likely violating your license already. But, I suspect, you are buying bulk laptops and using the OEM version of windows on there. No excuse for that my friend, that's just a lazy IT department.
All copyrights should be outlawed because I have a DAWKINS-granted right to be entertained for free!
Corporations are evil so therefore I don't have to pay!
Oh wait, is it a potential infringement of the GPL?
Nevermind what I just posted, I think we can all agree that summary executions of the offenders without trial is the only fair solution.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
The problem here is that the GPL is a very onerous license. The Apache license isn't much better.
Both contain far too much legalese. Read through them if you've never done so in the past. They aren't simple and straightforward like the BSD and MIT licenses are.
Shit, the preamble to the GPLv3 by itself is several times longer than the BSD and MIT licenses are!
For licenses that are supposedly about promoting freedom, the GPL licenses sure do have a lot of restrictions. The BSD and MIT licenses essentially say, "You're free to do what you want with this code." The GPL licenses, on the other hand, essentially say, "You're free to do what you want with this code, BUT if you want to do anything practical with it you're subjected to these numerous restrictive conditions."
Granting freedom doesn't require many words. But using many words when supposedly granting freedom likely means that it isn't freedom that's being granted, but instead it's restrictions that are being granted.
Please tell me you arent actually in charge of anything.
He did, he said he was talking about a "school district." When you're older, you'll realize that teachers are not authorities, schools are not valued institutions, and they don't have enough of an IT budget to even attempt to do things the "right way." And nobody cares, because none of their files are important.
I'd be more concerned if they were out of paper than if they had awful computers.
The MIT/BSD style licenses don't reduce the user's freedom, whereas the GPL makes it a lot harder to get things right (binary blobs for drivers being a good example). So, if you're a user, the BSD license is much friendlier.
Also, if you give a copy to your friend, you don't have to worry about them coming up to you a couple of years later and demanding the source, which may prove to be hard for defunct code that "just works" for your case.
And the third advantage is you're not going to be accused by freetards who don't understand the meaning of the words free and restrictive, and try to make restrictions sound like they're really free. 1984 called and wants it's doublespeak back.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Free publicity is good publicity. If you missed the original product announcement, here's yet another front page story on Slashdot... :)