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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[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: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: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.

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:Another good idea that will get shut down

[unixisc]

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

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: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.

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: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: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: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.