zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. orange+(OP)[view] [source] 2011-11-15 02:38:47
They've always been in compliance with the GPL; the Honeycomb kernel sources were always available.
replies(1): >>pingsw+9
◧
2. pingsw+9[view] [source] 2011-11-15 02:43:31
>>orange+(OP)
I hadn't heard that. Is that verifiable by any means at this point?

It still doesn't justify the "open source" moniker, but it's still good.

replies(2): >>wmf+R1 >>dtparr+N5
◧◩
3. wmf+R1[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 03:14:43
>>pingsw+9
The kernel source was at http://android.git.kernel.org/ but that server was subsequently destroyed in an unrelated incident and at this point you'd need a time machine to verify that it was really there and hasn't just been backdated, but yeah, it was available.
◧◩
4. dtparr+N5[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 04:53:45
>>pingsw+9
I suppose they could have backdated google groups, but here is JBQ's announcement of the 3.2 GPL's parts being released in July. http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/6410b447...

And here's a thread discussing building the 3.1 GPL'd code in May. http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_threa...

replies(1): >>pingsw+Jk
◧◩◪
5. pingsw+Jk[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 12:37:48
>>dtparr+N5
Thanks for the links; they're convincing. I'm surprised that Google hasn't made their GPL compliance here more prominent. It's something I've heard criticized, but it sounds like the criticisms are illegitimate.
[go to top]