5 ms·
Will it be open source? "Free for licensing" isn't quite clear. Will anyone by able to license access to the source code for free? If yes, what about forking?
by iokanuon 11y ago
Will it be open source? "Free for licensing" isn't quite clear. Will anyone by able to license access to the source code for free? If yes, what about forking?
EDIT:
Okay, this isn't what I've hoped for:
>Disclaimer: Remix OS is only licensed to authorized business partners and pre-loaded on specific product models of those partners;it's not intended for personal use.
- YngwieMalware 11y agoyeah this is not great. moving right along...
- serge2k 11y agoyeah, it looks like a nice product from the pictures but oh well. "Right click" is a feature. That makes sense but I still find it funny.
- keithpeter 11y agoEarly adopters in organisations are important. An .iso you can download gets you those without the 'corporate communications' problems you get when you have to fill out a form, use language like 'licencing' and then get the official IT department to install stuff.
- YngwieMalware 11y agoi would early adopt the heck out of this in a VM but they had to get all weird about it. not interesting at all in 2016
- ris 11y agoI suspect it largely doesn't exist yet. Keep in mind all you see are probably mockups.
- xearl 11y agoIt seems that "Remix OS for PC" will be at least "free to use": > "With that in mind, Remix OS for PC is free to download, free to install, and free to use." No idea about open source, though.
- currysausage 11y ago> free to download, free to install, and free to use Remix OS is based on Android and Android includes, among other things, the Linux Kernel, which is GPL, which is Copyleft, which would mean that the Remix OS creators would need to provide the source code to users, wouldn't it?
- yincrash 11y agoThey would need to publish any kernel changes they make, but most of the features they list would not require kernel changes.
- khedoros 11y agoYou can build closed and proprietary software on top of GPL software (for certain definitions of "on top of"), as long as any changes to the GPLed software are released as source, and LGPLed software is only linked to dynamically. Example: If I wrote an alternative GUI system to replace X and the open window managers, I wouldn't necessarily be forced to open-source that system. Real-world example: My employer uses Linux in some of its products, integrated with our proprietary software in license-compliant ways (and we've got a legal office that verifies that we're following the licenses for all the software that we use, to avoid legal trouble).
- mkesper 11y agoYour users have a right to get the full corresponding source of GPLed software you distribute to them, though.
- anon4 11y agoOnly if you've modified it. If not, then it's upstream's responsibility to distribute source. And even if you've modified it, I think distributing patchsets is enough, no?