zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. julian+(OP)[view] [source] 2011-11-15 02:20:17
Google releases every source code except Honeycomb. I think the code was really ugly, released urgently to support tablets. I cant blame Google, we who works with software in big companies know how pressure and strict timelines can be a pain, but I am glad that things are back on track.
replies(1): >>pingsw+J
◧
2. pingsw+J[view] [source] 2011-11-15 02:33:51
>>julian+(OP)
I agree that pressure and strict timelines can be a pain, but compliance with the GPL is not optional.
replies(2): >>recoil+W >>guelo+V8
◧◩
3. recoil+W[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 02:39:57
>>pingsw+J
They released the GPL parts.
replies(1): >>pingsw+81
◧◩◪
4. pingsw+81[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 02:45:39
>>recoil+W
I hadn't heard that. Is that verifiable at this point by some means?
replies(1): >>ben104+l6
◧◩◪◨
5. ben104+l6[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 04:44:07
>>pingsw+81
They've made posts in the android-building Google group when making GPL code drops. Here is the most recent, corresponding to GPL portions of Android 3.2.1.

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/android-building/IrFiwQ-hL...

replies(1): >>pingsw+Jl
◧◩
6. guelo+V8[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 05:57:34
>>pingsw+J
Only Android's modifications to the Linux kernel and a few other tools are under GPL. Most stuff is Apache 2.0.
replies(1): >>vog+Hc
◧◩◪
7. vog+Hc[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 07:55:20
>>guelo+V8
That's what Google used to tell us, but according to the guys of gpl-violations.org, this has always been a flat-out lie. Those "few other tools under GPL" are quite a lot and in no way negligible.
◧◩◪◨⬒
8. pingsw+Jl[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 12:39:49
>>ben104+l6
That's good and convincing. I stand corrected.
[go to top]