zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. pingsw+(OP)[view] [source] 2011-11-15 02:43:31
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+I1 >>dtparr+E5
◧
2. wmf+I1[view] [source] 2011-11-15 03:14:43
>>pingsw+(OP)
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.
◧
3. dtparr+E5[view] [source] 2011-11-15 04:53:45
>>pingsw+(OP)
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+Ak
◧◩
4. pingsw+Ak[view] [source] [discussion] 2011-11-15 12:37:48
>>dtparr+E5
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]