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?

Comments

Apache license?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not required to distribute source code when using an Apache license.

Running a diff on the license notices isn't sufficient evidence to claim that there is a violation in the Apache license.

$ diff -u NOTICE-remixos.html NOTICE-andx86.html

Re:Apache license?

[Aighearach]

http://www.apache.org/licenses...

b. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and

The claim is that they're violating section b. They have not identified the changed files.

The claims about not distributing source are for the GPL parts.

Re: Apache license?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what's those claims based on? Have they actually checked if there are sources available before making claims that there aren't.

Re: Apache license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on there are changes to the files, but none listed as being changed.

Duh.

Re: Apache license?

[Anonymous Coward]

But there were no changes to the files. And the accusations have already claimed that this was a cut-and-paste job.

Hanlon's Razor

[mspohr]

Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[gstoddart]

Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

If you are so criminally stupid as to not realize by now what those licenses mean, you need to be treated as a malicious entity.

Sorry, but 'stupidity' in this case is utterly indefensible. If you have the skillset to put this together, you sure as hell can't claim you didn't know about the licensing.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

The author of the article does not seem to understand what the Apache 2.0 License requires (e.g. it does not require redistribution of the Apache 2 Licensed source code). It isn't stupidity but maybe just ignorance.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from rms ravings claiming the gpl is not a restrictive license."

There - fixed that for you.

The Apache license has fewer requirements than the GPL. That's why it's called a permissive license.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Sorry, but 'stupidity' in this case is utterly indefensible."

The indefensible stupidity is you prattling on when there is literally nothing being done wrong here. If you had actually done any reading you would know that the creator of Unetbootin has come out and said what was done is exactly as he asked, and the Android-x86 project is similarly on board.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

> rms ravings claiming the gpl is not a restrictive license

It isn't -- for the users, that is. MIT/BSD style and GPL take different choices at whose restrictions they want to reduce, and both are respectable choices.

I know what RMS has done for me, I don't what you have done for me.

If you can't see it, try removing the foam from your mouth.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[pegr]

Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Immerman]

That's nice, and I agree it's probably premature to freak out over this too much, a certain amount of good faith among developers helps keep the whole open source community more vibrant and welcoming.

It's worth drawing attention to though, because there's literally thousands of other contributors to the precursor projects. If someone contributed two lines of code to the kernel twenty years ago, and those two lines are still in use in Remix OS, then their copyright is being violated by distributing binaries in violation of the GPL. It doesn't matter if every single intermediate project along the way has given you their blessing, the copyright to each of those tiny contributions to the whole must also be honored, so the Remix OS folks should get into full compliance as quickly as possible.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Though, I'm going to be a little more generous and say a combination of naivety and 'just trying to get things done'. I don't think they were trying to pull a fast one on anyone, I think they made something cool and just wanted to share it will people. If you're not really well versed on all the licenses, you have no idea what you need to comply - you just found 'free' software that fit into your project and used it.

I'm sure once they get a little more organized, they'll get the licensing in order. It sounds more like some clean up work than anything significant

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Right.

Slashdot (and various other Linux sites) are really quick to get out the GPL torches and pitchforks even when the intent was honest.

This is why the GPL is a bad license.

Re: Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't just licence choices that differ. BSD also choose to make software that works while rms have given me nothing but headaches before I understood that.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[unrtst]

If someone contributed two lines of code to the kernel twenty years ago, and those two lines are still in use in Remix OS, then their copyright is being violated by distributing binaries in violation of the GPL.

How are they in violation of the GPL? You state these things as if you know what you're talking about, but I strongly suspect you have a weak understanding of the GPL. Re-distributing unmodified binaries is different from modified binaries, which are both different than modified source. In all cases, there is no requirement to make the source freely available via a public repository.

... so the Remix OS folks should get into full compliance as quickly as possible.

And where is it that they are out of compliance?

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is a damn good license. You just don't like anyone else choosing to use it.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re: Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

RMS is hard to understand because he has a LISP.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

The "article" is a troll - the source is a wordpress blog that is really, really thin gruel that looks like it was written by someone with a high school hobbyist level of understanding of the scene. You'd get more information reading the -1 posts on slashdot.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[exomondo]

If someone contributed two lines of code to the kernel twenty years ago, and those two lines are still in use in Remix OS, then their copyright is being violated by distributing binaries in violation of the GPL.

What requirement of the GPL is being violated here? Is the RemixOS kernel a derivative project to which the source is unavailable?

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."

Given the author of the article is a systemd shill, I'm not surprised by either stupidity or malice.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[NotInHere]

Yeah, these guys making big headlines about license violations do more harm than good. Perhaps the project will now adapt to comply with the license, but open source will have a bad name inside the company. And additionally it will just lead to even more GPL avoidance.

I mean just think of the conversation if the question turns up what to license some in house software that's about to be released as open source:

dev: hi boss which license should we chose for the project?
boss: What licenses are there?
dev: For example, there is MIT, and there is the GPL license. In my opinion, GPL is better because it ensures we always have the most improved version of the software.
boss: Wasn't this GPL stuff those stupid people brought our company into headlines, damaging our reputation?
dev: Umm, yeah.
boss: Does MIT protect other companies from these kind of people?
dev: Yes, it does.
boss: Let's take MIT then, companies using the software should not be punished for using it.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

> So, if you're a user, the BSD license is much friendlier.

> 1984 called and wants it's doublespeak back.

It seems we agree.

BTW, if you develop software and don't like the GPL, well, too bad for us both, because I ain't buying closed software. And if your BSD creation is not closed, someone will copy it, improve it, sell it and pull your undies. So, in the end, you lose anyway. And you know what, you'll deserve it thoroughly.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[sumdumass]

The same can happen with gpl'd code. In fact, I have sold gpl software several times and nothing stops it from happening.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Immerman]

I don't know, I haven't even bothered to RTFA. But it sounds like not all of the distributed binaries can be perfectly recreated from publicly available source code - and at least for GPLed modules the modified source code must be made available to anyone who can legally get their hands on the binaries.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[ChunderDownunder]

Wasn't this GPL stuff those stupid people brought our company into headlines, damaging our reputation?

Free publicity is good publicity. If you missed the original product announcement, here's yet another front page story on Slashdot... :)

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Immerman]

Isn't the point that at least some of the binaries *are* modified, i.e. can't be perfectly recreated from publicly available source code? I admit I didn't RTFA though, and if the binaries are in fact all perfectly recreateable from source then yes, they're probably in line with the GPL2 (though I think GPL3 is a bit more demanding in that regard)

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you forget your sarcasm tag?

GPL isn't some hidden feature. Read the license before you distribute GPL code. If you don't agree with the license, don't use the software. And don't cry about negative publicity because you were caught violating copyrights.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[rtb61]

Likely they are keeping the code under cover per Googles request, that being the only obvious target for what they are producing. Like an experimental offshot, the explores that possibility sees real opportunity to produce a successful outcome and sell it back to Google in it's entirety, for Google to kick Windows out of the office. M$ attempted to force their desktop OS onto users phones, by trying to force them to adapt to the phone GUI on a desktop and now Google is investigating taking a GUI variant of the phone OS onto the desktop, now that M$ has created an opportunity to lever it off the desktop due to it's hugely perverted privacy invasive policies, destroying trust. No business can safely use the latest version of windows and protect it's own proprietary knowledge, at the same time, simply impossible.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they in violation of the GPL? You state these things as if you know what you're talking about, but I strongly suspect you have a weak understanding of the GPL. Re-distributing unmodified binaries is different from modified binaries, which are both different than modified source.

Great, here's the actual license. Show me where "unmodified binaries" are exempt from the source distribution requirements?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

Which subclause of (3) are they in compliance with, (a), (b), or (c)?

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

What requirement of the GPL is being violated here? Is the RemixOS kernel a derivative project to which the source is unavailable?

The requirement to provide the source code to all GPL binaries they are distributing.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

If you want it you'll buy it. Look at all the people who buy proprietary games.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[exomondo]

The requirement to provide the source code to all GPL binaries they are distributing.

They don't have to provide it, they just have to make sure it is accessible to you. If they pulled the source for the kernel from https://github.com/torvalds/li... to build the binaries then that's fine.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[exomondo]

So for kernel contributors how is it that "their copyright is being violated by distributing binaries in violation of the GPL"? Nobody has even established that there is any violation at all.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[adolf]

Redistributing any binary covered by the GPL requires source code to be made available.

Not necessarily online. And not necessarily for free (as in beer).

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to provide the source or provide a written offer how to obtain the source. They have done no such thing. You "think" you can find the source some place else. Not good enough. They are in violation of the GPL until they prove which source exactly corresponds to the binaries they are distributing.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[kriston]

> Likely they are keeping the code under cover per Googles request

I don't get it. We already have AOSP, don't we? What's more to hide?

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[jthill]

You can only offer the GPL on code for which you hold copyright. The conditions you're stipulating in the GPL, the restrictions, are on the distribution of your software. Others can still distribute their own software on any terms they like, they just can't distribute your software except on terms you like. They can't add pennies to the vault and then treat the vault as if it were their own.

The GPL doesn't impose restrictions, not unless you regard being granted less than the maximum conceivable license as a denial of something you had some right to expect.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[shaitand]

"but open source will have a bad name inside the company"

Good? If they are producing closed source output then I see nothing wrong with cutting themselves off from the development output of the open community and speeding their rapid crash and burn while some project that is actually open obsoletes them.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the law works how you think it works.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

As a USER (not a developer, not a distributor), I see it differently. With GPL licensed software, I get source code, and I can do whatever I want with it. "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it".

With BSD-licensed code, however, it always says something like
(C) copyright some year, Reagents of California.
(C) copyright some year, Microsoft Corporation.
All Rights Reserved.

Now please explain how the latter gives me more rights as a user.

I do know which one gave Microsoft more rights (i.e. the right to close the source). But Microsoft is not a user.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring the part about two lines of code (insert something about the word "trivial")...

As far as I remember, it wasn't until the GPLv3 they added the part about distributing unmodified copies being different than modified copies. The GPLv2 requires you to include source (or a written offer valid for three years to give the source to anyone asking) always. The GPLv3 allows you to only link to the original source when distributing unmodified copies. This is because back when the GPLv2 was written, distributing involved floppies or tapes. Most people couldn't just download the source.

The Linux kernel happens to be under GPLv2.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[silentcoder]

I was the lead developer of the Kongoni Distribution, and the FSF requested I actually mirror the upstream slackware source tree as part of my repository so that the sources for the binaries I distributed unmodified would be available with them. I had already been providing source packages for every package that was custom-built or modified, but they specifically requested I also provide the original sources for the unmodified binaries (as opposed to just linking back to slackware's repo as I had previously done).

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[dbIII]

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.

True, but one of the inspirations of wide adoption of the GPL was a proliferation of shit code and a cottage industry of hacks supporting their shit work instead of providing both the tool and what was needed to maintain it. Something at the hobby level provided to do a job should come complete instead of only containing the executable, because there are going to be instances where it cannot do the job without tweaking to fit a new environment or other reasons.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[tricorn]

That's not true. The source must be available "with the binary", it doesn't necessarily have to be hosted on the same server, but it needs to be available about as easily as downloading the binary. You could probably have a directory which, if you downloaded all the files in it (e.g. a bunch of tarballs for various pieces and a Makefile to build the whole thing), you'd have everything required. Telling you to use git to retrieve version torvalds-stable-3 from a kernel.org git repository, and another package from some svn server, and another only available using http, and one using rsync, and another using netcat (lol) is not sufficient.

You can use the "written offer" variant, or pass on a written offer if you got the binary from someone else who provided one, but very few people who distribute binaries take that route, since it requires maintaining any released version's source for 3 years.

Arch Linux binaries are built using scripts which specify where to retrieve a specific version of source code. The scripts (PKGBUILD shell scripts, plus files such as custom patches or config files) are all available, but the sources they point to aren't actually included, the script specifies where to get them from.

Arch was out of compliance with the GPL since "look in the PKGBUILD file, available through svn or git, to see where the source files might all be located, then use some other method to retrieve the correct version" doesn't satisfy the GPL requirements.

Arch supposedly now saves the retrieved source files for GPL packages (or maybe even all packages) and stores them, along with the PKGBUILD files, in a sources directory. However, I can't find any link to where that is now.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Well then, don't give them binaries without the source. You're not allowed to do that anyway, unless you include an offer to distribute source to anyone who asks.

So it you're not prepared to uphold the license, just don't distribute at all. Just tell your friend where you downloaded it and avoid the whole mess.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[exomondo]

kernel.org has an article on GPLv2 compliance that explains it. Have you actually looked at the information in RemixOS wrt licensing?

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

It's not about "some right to expect." It's simply a fact - the GPL license is far more restrictive than the MIT license. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, the GPL is restrictive. It's also pretty toxic as far as a business model is concerned. Now, that is the author's right, but FreeBSD (via OSX) is the #2 desktop - linux never will be. FreeBSD is also the #2 gaming system OS (Sony Playstation) - linux will never be.

And as far as smartphones are concerned - if there eventually turns out to be a licensing problem with linux, it will be replaced with FreeBSD. Networking, threaded code only needs 1 extra #include and a couple of #defines to run on both linux and bsd. More importantly, including the extra BSD header doesn't prevent the same binary from running under FreeBSD and linux.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

That's a blatant lie. The BSD license does NOT say "All Rights Reserved."

The license is very simple, especially when compared to ANY of the GPL licenses: Preamble - not part of the license, just a template for applying your own copyright.

The following is a BSD 2-Clause license template. To generate your own license, change the values of OWNER and YEAR from their original values as given here, and substitute your own.

OWNER = Regents of the University of California
YEAR = 1998

• Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
• 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
• 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

That's it. You get the code, you can do anything you want with it, including customizing it and charging per copy without giving the source. Unlike the GPL, you decide the conditions of redistribution of your work. If the user doesn't like that, let them write their own code. Nobody's forcing them to pay for software.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

You don't know what you're talking about. You only have to give the source to people YOU gave the binary to. So I can freely distribute modified source, distribute the binaries, and only give the recipients the source if/when they ask. Anyone else who gets the binary from a third party is sh*t out of luck, since I would have zero responsibility to them, since they didn't receive the binary from me.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[david_thornley]

Distributing unmodified binaries under the GPL doesn't change much. If done on a casual basis, you can pass on a copy of a written offer for the source. For serious distribution of modified or unmodified binaries, you have to provide the source or a written offer to provide it, under the GPLv2. GPLv3 makes it legal to torrent binaries without sources, and allows the distributor to have the binaries and sources downloadable from the same place, with no additional fee for the source.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[david_thornley]

I couldn't find it. The three uses of "unmodified" are to affirm your right to run the unmodified program without accepting any restrictions, allowing you to ship without the source of separate programs for building that you haven't modified, and in noting that the "Corresponding Source" includes both unmodified code and code that is a derivative work. There is no special treatment of unmodified binaries.

The Corresponding Source includes the tools needed to build and deploy the software. If you supply a makefile and expect the user to use gmake, that's fine. It's a common tool that's readily available. If you modify gmake for the build, you need to supply the source for your changed gmake.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[david_thornley]

You can just link back to another repo for the source, but it's your responsibility to see that it's working if you do, and to provide a replacement download source if it isn't. If you mirror the source on your own servers, you can control it yourself, and stay in compliance no matter what slackware does. It isn't actually required, but it seems to me to be a prudent thing to do.

Re: Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely right. This is very unprofessional behaviour, and it needs to be pointed out. This is something they should have been thinking of long ago.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

> You don't know what you're talking about. You only have to give the source to people YOU gave the binary to.

I do in fact know what I'm talking about.

If you don't distribute the source WITH the binary, you must include an offer per GPL 2.0 section 3.b. and GPL 3.0 section 6.b., valid for three years, to provide source code to any third party who possesses the binaries.

> So I can freely distribute modified source, distribute the binaries, and only give the recipients the source if/when they ask. Anyone else who gets the binary from a third party is sh*t out of luck, since I would have zero responsibility to them, since they didn't receive the binary from me.

Read the license again. It's very clear about what you're allowed to do, and distributing binaries without source, or without an offer of source to ANYONE who has the binaries, is not allowed.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[silentcoder]

That was pretty much the essence of the request.
There was another factor in my case though. Kongoni was FSF certified as fully free. Slackware is not. By mirroring - I could remove the sources for non-free pieces included with slackware.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[rtb61]

Don't think of it as permanent more temporary pending Google's acceptance to ensure that Google gets a significant head start and can establish it prior to releasing to a broader market. So code would be released should Google decide not to go ahead or released some time shorter before Google releases a product, to hype up the marketing and promote acceptance. All about Google getting a head start.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

Nope - I can charge whatever I deem is reasonable for 3rd party source code copies - and I can take my sweet time doing so. BTW, since both what defines a "reasonable charge" and there is no time limit specified, so good luck with that. The GPL, because of it's lack of specificity, can be challenged under the laws of many countries (including mine), and that portion excised, without affecting the other rights :-) And any clause that says otherwise will also be held invalid. See "contract of adhesion." The GPL is a "take it or leave it" license, and as such, is always interpreted against the offerer and and in favour of the recipient - at least that's what the law says here. So good luck with that.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nope - I can charge whatever I deem is reasonable for 3rd party source code copies - and I can take my sweet time doing so.

NO, you can't. You can only charge "no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange"

Note: your providing the source is not required by the license. The license only offers you an exemption from the source-with-binaries requirement IF you include the offer to provide source. So if you don't actually do it, or do it late, or overcharge, that's between you and the persons you're distributing to.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

Did you see the article where the police department charged $36,000 for video because they had to audit it? Do you have any idea of how much it would cost to "audit" all the code in a distro to make sure it was in compliance, etc? That's going to cost into the 7 figures, and take a LOOOONG time. That's reasonable, because you don't want to accidentally distribute something not to code :-)

The GPL is too vague to stand up in many jurisdictions. As I said before.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

> The GPL is too vague to stand up in many jurisdictions. As I said before.

It has stood up fine, because it's a license, not a contract. It specifies what you MAY do, but doesn't impose any action on you.

As I said before, you get an exemption if you include an offer for source code - but the offer is not a contract with the authors of the GPL'd code, it's a condition of the license. If you don't meet the terms of licensure, your license to distribute is forfeit.

If you take it to court, the terms of the license may be in question, but it's up to the authors to determine if you're complying with the license. If they find out you're not meeting your obligation by delaying or overcharging, they may revoke your license - which is a separate issue from whether you made good on your offer. If you make the offer and someone accepts it, then it's between you and the person you distributed to. It's a subtle distinction, but the FSF lawyers who vetted the license consider it legally valid.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

No, it's up to the JUDGE to decide if you're complying the the terms, or if the terms are excessive. Also, any offer and acceptance create a contract - same as any other license. The FSF lawyers can piss up a rope trying to defend a distinction without a difference. Both confer rights and obligations on the parties, and the courts are the place to decide whether any individual term is excessive - see contract of adhesion (contracts and licenses are treated the same here). :-)

Also, if they revoke the license,so what? Just download a new copy and you receive a new license, as per the terms of the GPL. Like I said, this is not a license for the 21st century.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

> No, it's up to the JUDGE to decide if you're complying the the terms

The judge decides whether copyright has been infringed, and that may include violation of the license terms, yes. The author has to make the case that the terms were violated and assert infringement.

> Also, any offer and acceptance create a contract

True, but there is no offer in the GPL, and no acceptance. It merely specifies what you MAY do with the code. The GPL imposes no obligations, it just allows you to distribute binaries alone IF your take it upon yourself to include an offer to provide the source code. This is crucial, because you create the obligation when you make the offer.

> Also, if they revoke the license,so what? Just download a new copy and you receive a new license, as per the terms of the GPL.

Now I know you're really without a clue.

GPL 3.0 section 8: "If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10."

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

Guess what - the GPL imposes obligations if you accept the code. That's a contract between two parties in most places. Don't want it to be a contract - then don't impose any limitations, duh! Also, licensing agreements are contracts. Saying you don't have to accept it is as silly as saying you don't have to buy a car - it doesn't change the fact that if a contract (gratuitous or onerous) has been formed.

The GPL until version 3 has no such "permanent revocation." And let's face it, adoption of the GPL3 is not exactly going anywhere fast, especially since it can't be imposed on existing nor new GPL2 code after the fact. So really, you are the one that doesn't have a clue.

Moral of the story - don't be a freetard, use the BSD or MIT license and avoid all this stupid arguing in the first place, because the GPL is a far more restrictive license. Which is what this all started up with. No headaches, no fuss, no stupid arguments over Mr Footcheese Eater's brain fart.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, just read the fucking licenses and get a clue. You DO NOT have to agree to the license to use it, but you are still bound by its terms because nothing else under copyright law gives you the right to distribute or make derivative works.

All of this is moot, anyway. If you don't want to share your code, don't use GPL'd code as your starting point, it's that simple. All of this hair-splitting is done by people who want to use the code but not share the results. If you want to distribute your derivative work, GPL 2 and 3 both make it clear and simple how to do it.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

No, you need to get a clue. If I use it, I am bound by law - not just copyright law but the whole body of law, including contracts. If a court rules that the GPL is a contract of adhesion and that some of the terms are unenforceable, then those parts of the license are simply null and void. It's as if they never existed.

A license is a form of contract in many places. Even your driver's license is a contract.

Eban Moglen doesn't like that the rest of the world isn't the United States. Well, that's just too damned bad for him. Also, there is no proof that abandoning the GPL for an open license like MIT or BSD would harm free software - look at how much code Apple continues to kick back to the FreeBSD project.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you keep pointing to license agreements? The GPL is not a license agreement, it is just a license.

It does not obligate you to do anything at all, and you don't agree to do anything by "accepting" it, ergo is is NOT a contract.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

Because any license, once accepted, is a contract, except for those portions that do not conform to public policy or law. It has NOTHING to do with Eban Moglan's miserable, US-centric interpretation of the law.

The GPL is no different from any other license - nobody is obliged to accept any license in the world. And Moglen has drunk Stallman's kool-aid. Same as the rest of the freetards :-)

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you are NOT required to "accept" the GPL.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[tricorn]

I have not looked at the details of RemixOS licensing, I was responding to the comment regarding GPL requirements.

The document you linked is not accurate with respect to distribution of code licensed under the GPL. It may be accurate with respect to what you need to provide if you want to submit something to kernel.org to be included in what they distribute, but if you're going to distribute software that includes GPL code that isn't yours and isn't covered under some other license, you'd need to comply with the GPL, and that means providing source (or a written offer), not just identifying where you got it from.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

So - you're NOT required to accept Microsoft's license either - just don't use the product. And yet, once you accept the license, you are in a contractual relationship with Microsoft, duh!

Moglan's argument is simple hand-waving. And the freetards have bought into it because of confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

Saying "You're not required to accept the GPL"? Stupid is as stupid does. But that's okay - keep pushing that line. That's one of the reasons there will nevr be a "Year of the linux desktop." FreeBSD has been the #2 desktop OS for quite some time, since it underpins OSX. The overly restrictive licensing of the GPL is the reason why.

And how long do you think it would take Google to switch from linux to freebsd as the host OS for Android if people made a fuss about some manufacturers making changes to the kernel without releasing them? The networking code is just 1 extra #include, and a couple of #defines, and the same binary then runs under both.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[jthill]

Google? Red Hat? IBM? Oracle, even? All deal in major linux-based platforms for big bucks. I don't think your characterizations and hypotheticals even pass the laugh test.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

Red Hat is small potatoes compared to the others you named. All the others make more profit than redhat makes in revenue. And in case you haven't noticed, IBM has partnered with Apple (you know, the guys who use FreeBSD code instead of linux because of the GPL). And Oracle has partnered with Microsoft on Azure.

And of course, Apple makes more profit than all the ones you named combined ... and uses FreeBSD code for Darwin, not linux.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[jthill]

Well, sure, if we very, very carefully, look only where you want us to look, it looks like you've got a case for something here.

Unfortunately for your argument, OS X is not BSD licensed. OS X is Cocoa. You can't name anything anyone regards as an OS X application that doesn't need Cocoa, and Cocoa is locked up tighter than Fort Meade. If you open an OS X programming guide, take an OS X programming class, attend an OS X developer's conference or seminar, use the interface of any OS X application or tool, it's Cocoa. Cocoa is not BSD licensed. OS X is not BSD-licensed. Apple is not making money off the FreeBSD part of OS X, they're making money off the Cocoa part, and more power to'em.

IBM, on the other hand, sells and supports Linux systems. Oracle sells and supports their own Linux distro.

Google -- Android's little-to-no more Linux than OS X is FreeBSD, so what was your point about people choosing BSD licensed innards?

Oh, yeah: "wrong".

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

I never said OSX was BSD licensed. I said that OSX was based on FreeBSD. And it is. Open up a terminal window and you'll see FreeBSD is pretty much all there for you to use.

IBM sales have slumped each quarter for 3-1/2 years. Not good, so it's not like linux is helping them sell their services. Hardware sales now represent less than 8% of revenues, and software sales continue their decline, as IBM gets away from the hardware and software business to continue to concentrate on the more profitable services division. IBM does not have their own distro, and Oracle's linux is just a modded RedHat, which is way less popular than even Slackware, a now-dead distro that has had no activity since 2013. Give them both red shirts.

Android also is not an operating system any more than Cocoa is. Android runs atop linux, but can be made to run on FreeBSD (FreeBSD already runs most linux binaries, though the reverse isn't true), same as Cocoa runs atop FreeBSD. Cocoa is an API, not an OS.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting back to the original point, you can't distribute GPL'd binaries without the source - UNLESS you get an exemption by including an offer to provide the source to anyone who asks, not just the person(s) you gave the binaries to.

So if you gave binaries to your friend without the source, (s)he's perfectly justified in coming up to you (up to 3) years later and asking for it. If you didn't include the source or an offer to later provide it, you have no rights under GPL or copyright law to distribute and you're infringing copyright. Clear?

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

No, the ORIGINAL point was that the GPL is less free than the BSD license. The GPL has restrictions/conditions on redistribution, the BSD license does not.

And in most areas of the world, a license, once accepted, forms a contract between the parties. And courts are free to modify any part that is not in line with the law, public policy, or that is unreasonably one-sided. Such authorization is NOT a violation of copyright law. Too bad ...

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[exomondo]

And, as I said, https://github.com/torvalds/li... is a perfectly acceptable location for the kernel source. If you respond to their written offer and they point you there then that is perfectly fine.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the ORIGINAL point was that the GPL is less free than the BSD license.

I wasn't arguing that, although some people think the GPL is "more free" because it protects your rights to modify and distribute derivative works... the code can't be closed off. BSD is "more free" for developers because they have more options on distribution.

MY original point was that if you disagree with the terms of the GPL, don't use it. You don't get additional rights over the code just because you don't "accept" the GPL. If you don't want to share your code, GPL is not for you.

And courts are free to modify any part that is not in line with the law, public policy, or that is unreasonably one-sided. Such authorization is NOT a violation of copyright law. Too bad ...

We'll see if that holds water in court. But as far as Berne and INTERPOL are concerned, if you're distributing someone else's stuff without proper permission (which you can ONLY get from the license, on the copyright holder's terms) you're in violation.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[BarbaraHudson]

if you're distributing someone else's stuff without proper permission (which you can ONLY get from the license, on the copyright holder's terms.

This is an outright falsehood. You can legally use and distribute copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner. There are several loopholes that anyone on this site should pop into any slashdot user's head with only a second's thought. Come on, you can do it. Or if you can't, go to the copyright office and read up on the exceptions :-) p.

Another good idea that will get shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

It does all the stuff I want it to do which means we have to shut it down right? If I could find an android desktop os that would work on intel chips, I would switch our school district over in a heartbeat. All of our students are well versed in the use of Android.

Nothing has pushed me to find an alternative OS for our k12 district than the Windows 10 push that microsoft has been pulling. If we dont OWN our paid for OS, then I see no reason to be loyal to it anymore either.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[spire3661]

"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.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[acoustix]

I wish I had mod points.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the cocksucking assface probably would not manage a single fucking shit given the kind of retard he is. Android is shit beyond imagination.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[phishybongwaters]

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.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[stephanruby]

If I could find an android desktop os that would work on intel chips, I would switch our school district over in a heartbeat.

As an Android developer and an Android fan myself, I just have one question for you.

Why in the world would you even do something like that?!?!!!

Android is absolutely great for consuming media and playing games, but it certainly doesn't educate kids, nor does it cure cancer.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please explain how you would MANAGE..."

= you can't.

'Herding jello cats' comes to mind.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Andy Dodd]

Yeah, as much as I like Android, it is not suitable for desktop systems except for a few special niches.

I can see it making sense for someone to do an HTPC build that was Android-based in order to run Android games. But to be honest a SHIELD Android TV would be an easier/better/likely cheaper solution for Android games, especially since many of them only have ARM native components and have a severe performance hit on x86.

It makes no sense as a desktop/educational OS right now - which is why the Pixel C has been slammed by so many for having an OS inappropriate to the type of product.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Christian Smith]

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.

Sorry, are you saying the OEM version of Windows is NOT licensed for use in schools?

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[BarbaraHudson]

Do you think that the tablets and computers used in schools today are really used for education, as opposed to "education".

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[stephanruby]

If I could find an android desktop os that would work on intel chips, I would switch our school district over in a heartbeat. All of our students are well versed in the use of Android.

I am sure that your school district cafeterias can be found to be corrupt as well, but that doesn't mean you should just give up and supply all your students with high-sugar-based candies and soda pop every day instead.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[unixisc]

How is Remix OS any different from Chrome OS? Just the ability to run Dalvik?

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Nethead]

I think he's implying that the school is running a home version of Windows that can't be joined to a Windows Domain and benefit from all the user and config control offered by Active Directory.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

... same way you'd manage corporate Android phones?

Why the backlash? Are children running /. now?

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

well, for one, especially for school, Android can be locked down much tighter than Windows, and has substantially fewer vulnerabilities for 3rd party software (looking at you Adobe). Remember, schools basically need a computer that does web browsing, word processing and then MAYBE some powerpoint, excel and programming. If it's a graphic design class, than it needs a few more pieces, but that's more a special case. That's why ChromeOS based laptops are selling like crazy to schools (the low price point doesn't hurt either). Sure, Android is way less capable, but in this specific use case, it's suppose to. Whether the systems are easier to manage at scale varies wildly among districts, but I suspect the number of districts managing student user and email accounts via AD and Exchange to be very small. If you're not running AD, then the managing of the computers will be almost the same as it is now.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[mmiscool]

Its all about the demographic (Students) and the qty of apps available. This is a mobile first world we live in today. Making the device that the students use familiar is a good thing.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[unrtst]

(regarding Android on the desktop)

It makes no sense as a desktop/educational OS right now...

Personally, I've wanted it since very near the same time it came out, but probably not the way some are envisioning it.

I run linux on the desktop, and have done so exclusively for over a decade. I have a laptop with Windows dual boot that I use a handful of times a year. Those times are what I really want desktop Android for, because, for whatever reason, some closed apps/services offer Android versions of stuff for which they do not offer Linux versions. A couple good examples are polycom conference software, MS Lync, and other online meeting tools (I can't remember which site... gotomeeting? or maybe it was the other one, but I can't remember its name). Entertainment software is another realm - all the various TV station apps (NBC, ABC, FX, Fox, SyFi, CC, etc), Netflix, etc. I can get good Android support for all those, but not under Linux.
Running a desktop Android in a VM would be, IMO, a very handy bridge for those occasions.

For enterprise desktops, it's not suitable, at least not right now. I suspect that if Android ever gets to the point where it's near suitable in the enterprise desktop realm, it'll also be much more complex, and it'd lose some of the simple things that make it attractive for some of those niches today.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[rubycodez]

so you use a bunch of negative emotional words without any reasons or logic, and get modded insightful?

Android has a linux kernel and so can even run for example the Debian userland apps if configured to do so.

Some cell phone companies manage Android devices, so it is not an impossible feat.

you are blathering without a shred of evidence or logic.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[thegarbz]

This doesn't actually surprise me. We had domain managed logins back when I was at school and computers were shared in a lab, but these days of laptops, iPads, etc the way schools run their devices are JBOD (Just a Bunch of Devices).

Even my wife's work laptop (school teacher) doesn't join to an active directory, though it does have Windows 8.1 Pro on it. Modern schools are managed online through any device via blackboard or at her current school Google Classroom / Google Docs which is a great benefit because she hates her work laptop and now just uses her own computer for everything.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Well said.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

> Well if your school was using enterprise version of windows, as you should be,

Exactly. Schools are for ensuring that children grow up to be Microsoft trained consumers. They would not be able to survive in the outside world if they aren't familiar with Word and Excel and believe that Visual Studio is the only development system to use for writing the only usable language: C#. Also they will learn to Bing it and that Azure is their saviour.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[farble1670]

Yeah, as much as I like Android, it is not suitable for desktop systems except for a few special niches.

you aren't the first person that's said that, but without any specific examples as to why.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[farble1670]

Android is absolutely great for consuming media and playing games, but it certainly doesn't educate kids, nor does it cure cancer.

great for consuming media, like instructional video, literature, web pages, and textbooks? it supports keyboards and mice (well) and has several complete productivity suites.

what exactly are you looking for?

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you do in-place upgrades from Home to Pro on Windows 8 and 8.1? (unless they are all on Vista or 7)... That would cost a small chunk, and would likely take a while to do (going from machine to machine), but it is feasible to do. Then add all to a domain, deploy WSUS for patching and learn to start locking down the machines so the munchkins... err students don't cause complete havoc upon them.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the qty of Android Desktop apps available on x86?

I think this makes about as much sense as using Windows Mobile 6 because Windows.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[farble1670]

...

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not recommended, but the OEM part isn't the problem. Certain editions of Windows can't be used in large networks according to their EULA. Rarely enforced, but there it is.

However, for site- or organisation-wide educational agreement licensing, a minimum of an OEM version of Windows is required to be licensed on the machine when purchased. The SA or EA upgrades the OEM license to whatever version of Windows you want under the agreement - you aren't licensed to buy a truckload of random parts, build them yourself and install Windows on them without an equivalent truckload of OEM Windows Home (for e.g.) stickers.

If you think that's prickish, I recommend some light bedtime reading, checking out the Ts & Cs for SPLA.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[spire3661]

Sure its possible, but is it FEASIBLE considering the alternatives we have. The first question is,' why would you want android?' User familiarity? They change the OS every year..Jelly bean looks and acts nothing like Marshmallow. SO scratch that. Apps? Im not even going to touch that. The vast majority of apps are utter spyware that students shouldnt be using anyways.. There just is no upside to using android in this way when you look at the entirety of the toolsets we have available. Its a poor choice without spending a fuck ton of development time and money. We have been down this road with Linux a hundred times on slashdot. At least that choice makes sense, Android does not in any way make the same sense as using linux.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[exomondo]

Android has a linux kernel and so can even run for example the Debian userland apps if configured to do so.

So why not just use the right tool for the job - a debian distribution - rather than putting increased burden on school IT systems by shoehorning debian-based userland apps onto a desktop adaptation of a tablet/phone OS?

Some cell phone companies manage Android devices, so it is not an impossible feat.

Seems a fairly pointless exercise though. It's not like there is consistency with Android or anything that you would get out of it.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[stephanruby]

I think Chromebooks/Chromeboxes would be better. Android doesn't support printing very well. Chromebooks do. Keyboard support and mice support is not great. At least that's my opinion, I have owned several Google TVs and one Android TV.

Switching user also on Android takes too long, much longer than on a Chromebook, making that feature almost worthless for kids that need to switch accounts quickly. This didn't work well with my family. I am sure it will work even less well in a school environment with many more kids trying to use those devices.

Multi-windowing is coming too on Android. It's already here for Samsung, LG, and some other brands, but it is still very primitive. Despite that Android can work for some non-touch devices, it is still primarily designed for touch in mind.

The opposite is true for Chromebooks. Despite the fact that many Chromebooks come with touch screens now, Chromebooks weren't designed with touch in mind. In fact, if someone wants to buy a Chromebook, it's usually much cheaper and it actually consumes much less battery power if they only buy a non-touch version.

I would expect there to be other reasons as well, but that's what I've got so far.

Re:Another good idea that will get shut down

[farble1670]

Android doesn't support printing very well.

it supports printing perfectly. you go to the play store and install the driver for your printer. done.

Keyboard support and mice support is not great.

they support almost any USB or bluetooth KBs and mice, and the mouse integration works really well.

Not to undermine the enthusiasm but...

[ciascu]

It's a little unclear what is official response, what is somebody else's response (e.g. "For the record, I am not a member..." doesn't suggest an authoritative source) and what is actually required. In fairness to them, the major objection in the article is over UNetBootIn - Geza Kovacs (the upstream author) has kindly posted in the comments section: "They seem to have simply followed my instructions for customization [...] so I don't mind."

Lack of responsiveness would obviously be an issue, and one that's easy to confirm, so maybe a big statement in the article saying "I made formal contact directly a week ago and heard nothing back" would have been a good first step to answer "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?"

Re:Not to undermine the enthusiasm but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are linux homefront project? They seem to me like open source's answer to copyright trolls, out there agressively enforcing minor compliance issues. Not coders, not people with any actual claim to the intellectual property, but do-gooder assholes deciding to put themselves in charge. Maybe they'll succeed and destroy an interesting project before it can get off the ground.

Why should Remix OS have to answer to these assholes?

Re:Not to undermine the enthusiasm but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone on one of the forums requested the Linux kernel source. They responded that they hadn't modified it and provided a pointer to where to get it.

So this could be a big misunderstanding on their part. If they didn't modify any GPL code, the likely think they don't need to do anything since the source is out there. If this is the case, eventually someone will figure out what is up and either start hosing their own copy or at least providing links to what they used.

Re:Not to undermine the enthusiasm but...

[Andy Dodd]

Apache does not require release of source AND does not have the advertising clause of the "older" BSD licenses, so I'm not sure what about this project might be violating the Apache license. Overall Apache is pretty permissive and it's hard to violate except by providing source code but claiming said source code as your own (e.g. removing copyright notices and replacing them) - strangely, releasing a binary-only Apache component with no advertising (e.g. every Android device on the market except for Nexus devices) is more legal than releasing source for the component that removes all original author credit. I do recall the Android-x86 guys were pretty unhappy about RemixOS being effectively a for-profit kang, but the nature of Apache was such that there wasn't much they actually could do about it.

GPL is a whole other story. If they are failing to provide sources in compliance with the GPL then they can burn. (Technically they have to provide sources themselves, but I will let someone slide who says "We used unmodified upstream sources which can be found at X" when there is no evidence to the contrary.)

Re:Not to undermine the enthusiasm but...

[Aighearach]

Both are accused in TFA. So, yeah. One part is Apache and didn't list changed files as required, the other is GPL and source code has been refused.

Re:Not to undermine the enthusiasm but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you guys heard? The Remix OS is not only closed sourced, it also has some quite interesting stuff in its EULA:

“You agree that you irrevocably wave any and all ownership, legal and moral rights to your user content”

“You may not oppose the basic principals determined in the constitution of the Peoples Republic of China, harm it’s national honor or interests or undermine it’s national religious policy, by promoting cults and superstitions. You are not allowed to spread rumors disturb social order or undermine social stability”

All of a sudden Micro$oft doesn't look so evil any more...

Re:Not to undermine the enthusiasm but...

[Anonymous Coward]

What changes are there? There appear to be no changes. So nothing in Apache license applies.

Re:Not to undermine the enthusiasm but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot this part:

"You are required to give the leader of North Korea a handy if the opportunity ever presents itself."

Or in other words, quit making stuff up.

Re:Not to undermine the enthusiasm but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's made in China, and thus set to Chinese law, DUH.

You fucking expected ANYTHING ELSE FROM CHINA?

Re:Not to undermine the enthusiasm but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or may be you should learn to read up:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/remix-os-has-eula-that-asks-users-to-waive-rights-to-all-user-content-498848.shtml

To be fair Remix OS is not along in this. Other Chinese smartphone company such as MI have similar clause in their user agreement:

http://www.mi.com/en/agreement/

"make available"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Make available" != internet GIT access. And you can bet that will be their lawyers stance too.

Re: "make available"

[technosaurus]

Damn small Linux had you do something like fill out a form and send it snail mail with a money order to cover the cost of shipping, handling and media (floppy disks) .

Re: "make available"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf r u talking about? Dsl is super easy to get. Was this the nineties?

What do you mean access to the repo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you formally requested the source and provided a blank dvd, or covered reasonable costs?

Have they actively refused to provide the source to people who have asked, or did they just not go out of their way to set up a github and write step by step build instructions and make it super easy for you?

Re:What do you mean access to the repo?

[Anonymous Coward]

For GPL? That's not how it works. They need to include the source or an offer, valid for 3 years to provide source (some none-commercial exceptions apply, but likely not here). The latter btw generally is idiotic as it means you need to keep the exact source used and possibly notes on the build setup available for 3 years, and if you mess it up (e.g. forgot to write down which source version you used for some release) you are technically in violation.
So you don't have to formally request anything to know if they are in compliance or not.

Re:What do you mean access to the repo?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why at every company I've worked for we have a tarball that we provide on request. Anyone who has the binaries has a right to that tarball, all they have to do is ask for it.

A git repo might work, if they provide tags or some hint as to how to get the exact version that was built. Honestly I won't bother providing repo access to anyone unless I was feeling particularly generous or looking to ingratiate myself with the loudest whiners in the open source community.

Calm Down

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Calm Down

[msauve]

"There's no time constraint how quickly they must respond to a request."

We can assume you're referring to GPL, since the Apache doesn't require one to provide source, although you do need to provide a copy of the license along with attribution, which seems to be where that violation occurs.

For GPL, any distribution must be accompanied with the source, or with an offer to provide the source. There's no room for any delay, which is a time constraint. Not making good on an offer of source within a reasonable timeframe (e.g. perhaps a matter of weeks if via post, perhaps days if via electronic distribution) would IMHO be an actionable act of bad faith.

It's not uncommon for large Android licensees (e.g. Samsung, HTC, etc.) to not make source or a valid offer available immediately. I think they're playing with fire there - it would only take a single contributor to the Linux kernel to bring suit, and they could easily lose rights to the kernel in perpetuity - a copyright holder may terminate the license for someone who is in violation.

"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."

Uh, no. You're just making a semantic argument. The clear intent of the GPL is that source should be available as readily as the distributed object code.

Best X-mas present evar

[wkwilley2]

Whoopsie.....someone's glad he already gave away his Remix Mini

Copyright is EVIL!

[CajunArson]

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.

Re:Copyright is EVIL!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the difference is that following the GPL/Apache licence costs next to nothing. If they didn't talk big words about licencing it to other entities it would have been a bit better.

Re:Copyright is EVIL!

[Anonymous Coward]

One can reasonably believe copyright is evil but still support the GPL - it's retaliatory violence after someone else tries to restrict information. The difference is non-aggression vs pacifism.

Re:Copyright is EVIL!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to be a douche, can you at least have a coherent thought? free as in beer is not the same as Free software, and no one is talking about money here anyway.

"Popular"

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a subjective word I guess. I don't know anyone that has or cares about any of these projects.

The GPL is too damn confusing.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The GPL is too damn confusing.

[Qzukk]

Granting freedom doesn't require many words

That's because the GPL doesn't grant freedom. It requires developers to grant freedom, and that's a completely different ball of wax.

Re: The GPL is too damn confusing.

[jpenguin]

MIT/BSD & Creative Commons are my favorite licenses. Clear and concise. GPL is way too long. I think GPL3 is too restrictive, GPL2 is better in this regard- but still to complex.

Re:The GPL is too damn confusing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure that's the real problem (well, I mean, it's a problem, but not necessarily a problem with this OS). A huge, red-light-flashing, klaxon-blaring, problem that I see is that it's not clear what license that this mess is licensed under. It says that it's free to download, but that it's also "only licensed to authorized business partners and pre-loaded on specific product models of those partners;it's not intended for personal use."

To top all of that off, I can't find anything about any license on any of their pages, including their FAQ. I wouldn't touch this thing with a pole of any length until I could figure out just what I was getting myself into.

Re:The GPL is too damn confusing.

[stoborrobots]

This is essentially a distro, of android-x86. That would be like asking what licence Fedora was under... Different parts are under different licences.

Re: The GPL is too damn confusing.

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone used the MIT / BSD or similar licenses we would soon be back in the situation of the 90s where no complete systems were available, only a few research licenses. All software would look like clang where Apple has it's own internal version which works properly whilst everyone else uses a broken "open core" version.

What eveyone who thinks the GPL is complex should do is print out Microsoft's Windows license and the GPL and remember that it's the GPL which is protecting us from all having to deal with Microsoft's license. Suddenly the GPL seems very simple and very bright.

Re:The GPL is too damn confusing.

[OrangeTide]

If you don't like the GPL, then don't use software based on it. Nobody is forcing you to build a project using Linux or the thousand other GPL packages.

Apache license is pretty easy to understand. Even if you screw up with Apache, it is very easy to get back into compliance by publishing a simple document.

Re:The GPL is too damn confusing.

[mysidia]

That's because the GPL doesn't grant freedom. It requires developers to grant freedom

The GPL grants freedom on the condition you cannot enslave others; that includes the users of your product, even if they paid you first.

If they like your product highly enough, then they can fork it and resell it or pay a competing developer continue the development, so they can compete directly, and the GPL prohibits you from writing a proprietary value-add that becomes an extension of the software.

Re:The GPL is too damn confusing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL grants freedom on the condition you cannot enslave others;

Absolute rubbish! Not giving somebody the source code to a binary they were completely free to not use is not "enslaving" them, that is just the ridiculous hyperbole that zealots resort to because the reality isn't particularly compelling. You have to be extremely intellectually dishonest to suggest this has anything to do with slavery.

Re: The GPL is too damn confusing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too confusing? Here, I'll summarize it for you. It's very simple.

If you distribute GPL binaries, you must offer the corresponding source code.

It's only complicated when you try to avoid complying with the very simple requirement to offer the source code.

Re:The GPL is too damn confusing.

[tetraverse]

What parts of the GPL don't you understand: GNU General Public License

"All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."

"You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License."

"You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."

"Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License."

"Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version."

Re:The GPL is too damn confusing.

[silentcoder]

>Granting freedom doesn't require many words

But protecting it does.
That's why the constitution is rather longer than the declaration of independence.

Now you are correct that "being allowed to take somebody else's freedom away" is a freedom, so is being allowed to punch people in the nose. In both cases society is more free over-all if each individual is less free by removing freedoms from individuals that would reduce the freedoms of others.

Re:The GPL is too damn confusing.

[david_thornley]

Let's look at freedoms then, and not mention slavery.

The GPL grants everyone the ability to get the source code, and use it pretty much as you want. The only serious restriction is that, if you distribute the software, you have to do give the people you distributed to the same deal. This means that anybody is free to modify and use the software. It's more a share and share alike license than more permissive licenses.

To understand it, think of RMS with a printer, and the printer driver not working correctly in that environment. RMS wanted to change the printer driver, which would mean getting the source code, changing it, and substituting it for the original driver. The GPL is intended to guarantee that option for all programmers using GPLed software.

Re: The GPL is too damn confusing.

[david_thornley]

It's easy to comply with, though. If you distribute binaries, you also distribute the source code and instructions on how to compile and install it. Also, you can only distribute the original software, with any changes you may have made to it, under the same license as came with it. Make sure there's no gotchas for other people. Then, you're fine.

A lot of the complication is to nail down these concepts so that lawyers can't find wiggle room to avoid the requirements. Abide by the spirit and you don't need to read the license for details. Try to use the words in the license to find a loophole, and you need to examine it carefully.

Re:The GPL is too damn confusing.

[david_thornley]

Sure, but if the GPL is among those licenses (like if they use the Linux kernel), they can't restrict it to anyone special, and they need to provide the source (not necessarily themselves) to the version of the kernel they used.

No Changes, No Violation

[Luthair]

IANAL but, if there are no changes then it isn't a violation. Similarly as others have noted the Apache license doesn't require the same license be used for derivative works.

Seems like the author isn't really familiar with how open source licensing works and shouldn't be posting sensationalist articles.

Re:No Changes, No Violation

[ADRA]

That's all fine and dandy as long as you provide access to the source, even if that's a link to another provider's version of the source. This implies literally 0 changes to the source, and of course the source linkage must be included in the body of the distribution to my understanding.

Re:No Changes, No Violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Paraphrasing the GPL from memory
"You don't have to accept this license, but doing so grants you the right to distribute the software."

Luthair clearly hasn't read the GPL, but has a wrong opinion anyway.

Re:No Changes, No Violation

[Luthair]

I have read the GPL, along with a quite a few other OSI approved licenses. See previous statement about unchanged source != violation.

Re:No Changes, No Violation

[david_thornley]

Since the Linux kernel is under GPLv2, they need to provide the source for all GPLed parts, either along with the binaries or with a written offer. (GPLv3 offers another couple of options, and you can often get away with pointing to somewhere else for the source.) It doesn't matter to the GPL if the program is modified or unmodified.

Every customized mobile phone OS is the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck getting the source of MIUI, etc.

Inflammatory Opinion Piece / Clickbait

[Kryptonut]

Apache software doesn't require the source to be released. Author thinks all open source software should be released to the masses. People asked for their source code, Jide said no, because they weren't partners and explained that Remix OS itself is not open source.

They even had the author of UNetBootin post in the comments section of the story saying he was fine with what Jide had done. Android-x86 project also seem to be on board from what I can gather.

So what's the problem, other than Jide not doing what the author thinks they should do?

Re:Inflammatory Opinion Piece / Clickbait

[Immerman]

You also need the blessing of everyone who has ever contributed so much as a single line that's still in the kernel or other modules, not just the immediate upstream projects. And that's pretty much impossible, since contribution sources weren't well documented in the early days. Without that you'd better be in full compliance with the license that code was contributed under or you're violating the contributors copyright.

Re:Inflammatory Opinion Piece / Clickbait

[Kryptonut]

And we wonder why businesses shy away from open source. Well, unless it's BSD licensed I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti open source, I've worked for 2 ISP's and all we ran was Linux & BSD - OSS kept me fed and a roof over my head....plus I have a few machines at home that run it.

Re:Inflammatory Opinion Piece / Clickbait

[Rockoon]

Without that you'd better be in full compliance with the license...

Threats work better when they arent vague hand waving.

Re:Inflammatory Opinion Piece / Clickbait

[Immerman]

Does anyone really wonder that? GPL-style licenses are wonderful for anyone willing to give back in kind for the projects they build their software from, but anyone who wants to make a proprietary derivative work should indeed stay away - such parasites aren't wanted in the community, though they're still welcome to use the software, just not modify it.

BSD style licenses (aka practically public domain) are indeed a different proposition, and seem to be generally adopted more by projects that want to establish de-facto standards more than evolving source-code libraries.

Re:Inflammatory Opinion Piece / Clickbait

[Immerman]

Okay, how about "either have a license to distribute the product you're selling, or risk getting sued for copyright infringement by the many people whose work you're stealing". Because if you're not in compliance with the GPL, then you have no license to distribute a project built with other people's GPLed code, and are committing bald-faced copyright infringement, which carries pretty draconian legal penalties. (well, at least assuming you haven't negotiated independent licenses with 100% of the contributors)

Re:Inflammatory Opinion Piece / Clickbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Apache software doesn't require the source to be released. Author thinks all open source software should be released to the masses. People asked for their source code, Jide said no, because they weren't partners and explained that Remix OS itself is not open source.

Except for the GPL portions that do require source code to be made available.

Here are some on a list

[Anonymous Coward]

https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?...

Parasites, or what exactly are these? Criminals? Is it a crime?

no modification?

[rastos1]

From the article: "Output is absolutely clear â" no differences! No authors, no changed files, no trademarks, just copy-paste development." Is this a blatant disregard for the GPL and Apache licenses

In true /. tradition I did not read TFA. However based on the quoted part ... isn't GPL requiring to publish source code only if they publish a modification of GPL-ed software?

Re:no modification?

[Psychotria]

Well, the other thing to consider is that you don't have to publish the GPL source code at all: you need to make it available if somebody asks for it. Has anyone asked for it?

Re:no modification?

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't GPL requiring to publish source code only if they publish a modification of GPL-ed software?

I'll quote it so you don't have to open another web tab.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Notice there's no exception for "unmodified" files. If you distribute GPL binaries, you must offer the source.

Re:no modification?

[rastos1]

I stand corrected.

Called it!

[pecosdave]

Seriously, these REMix guys should read Slashdot, it could save them some trouble.

AC's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Never ascribe to stupidity that which can be explained by malice, when it comes to a corporation. The execs know Hanlon's razor, and when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they simply cry, "I didn't know!"

Horrible Article to link to

[Wattos]

The blog post is really terribly written. It is full of negative emotions which distract from the point the author wants to convey.

The very first screenshot contains a window of "Unetbootin" in Russian and a version of Remix OS USB Tool in English. That makes is very difficult to compare the applications, which is a means to support the authors thesis. Unfortunately, such an article can only have the opposite effect of advertising for Remix OS.

I hope somebody will have a calm look at this and make a write up which is credible. If Remix OS is in violation of the GPL license, I hope that there will be consequences to their actions. At the very least I would expect them to release the source code

Fuck the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll do what I want!!!

They should have allowed us to download it already

[kriston]

They should have allowed us to download it already. You have to purchase a device. Or, you can "apply" for a "license," but only if you're not an end user.

These guys are really not being helpful.

Actually Source has to be available for request

[rhyous]

Actually, all the GPL says is that the source has to be available for request. It doesn't have to be available to easily download via the internet. If you offer the code to anyone who writes a written request via snail mail with a valid postage stamp you are technically compliant with GPL.

Also as for Apache section B, the article contradicts itself. First it says that the changed files haven't been named, then it says ". . . no differences! No authors, no changed files, no trademarks, just copy-paste development." Which is it? Are there changed files they need to report or not?

Dumb flame war.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Geza Kovacs a day ago

Hi I wrote unetbootin. They seem to have simply followed my instructions for customization on the wiki which are listed at http://sourceforge.net/p/unetb... so I don't mind."

So uhh.. They followed his INSTRUCTIONS. Many people don't seem to mind if you use their instructions. Dumbest flame war ever.

Re:They should have allowed us to download it alre

[david_thornley]

They don't have to distribute it in any convenient form. They do have to provide source or a written offer for any parts under GPLv2 (like the kernel).