zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. pingsw+(OP)[view] [source] 2011-11-15 02:33:51
I agree that pressure and strict timelines can be a pain, but compliance with the GPL is not optional.
replies(2): >>recoil+d >>guelo+c8
◧
2. recoil+d[view] [source] 2011-11-15 02:39:57
>>pingsw+(OP)
They released the GPL parts.
replies(1): >>pingsw+p
◧◩
3. pingsw+p[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 02:45:39
>>recoil+d
I hadn't heard that. Is that verifiable at this point by some means?
replies(1): >>ben104+C5
◧◩◪
4. ben104+C5[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 04:44:07
>>pingsw+p
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+0l
◧
5. guelo+c8[view] [source] 2011-11-15 05:57:34
>>pingsw+(OP)
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+Yb
◧◩
6. vog+Yb[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 07:55:20
>>guelo+c8
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.
◧◩◪◨
7. pingsw+0l[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 12:39:49
>>ben104+C5
That's good and convincing. I stand corrected.
[go to top]