4 ms·

> Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well It's not because Google has open sourced Android (which they _had_ to because of

> Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well It's not because Google has open sourced Android (which they _had_ to because of the GPL used by Linux). The fine is for protecting their own marker by blocking others from using that open source software.

trasz 8y ago
Minor nit: Google didn't have to Open Source the whole Android because of Linux; Linux is just one of many components, and Linux' license doesn't apply to the rest of the software there.
- LamaOfRuin 8y ago
  This is always an interesting problem of definition and separation. If all the things google claims are absolutely essential and inseparable as part of 'Android' the license could well be interpreted as requiring them to open source all of it. If, on the other hand, these are all separate pieces of software and not totally dependent to deliver the end 'experience' then that contradicts some of Google's legal arguments.
  - pertymcpert 8y ago
    The GPL issue is completely separate. The law regarding GPL and where is applies vs LGPL is well understood.
    - trasz 8y ago
      Not really, no. There's the FSF interpretation on one hand, but on the other there are companies like VMWare which happily put binary blobs into the Linux kernel and don't consider it a "derived work".
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        There are disagreements, but let's put it this way: If even the FSF would call it okay, then it's almost certainly okay. And the FSF will tell you that the kernel license doesn't infect user space.
  - trasz 8y ago
    Has Google actually claimed the kernel is "essential and inseparable", or did they just do that wrt the closed-source Google apps, though?
    - LamaOfRuin 8y ago
      I don't consider that part up to Google's discretion. It simply doesn't function without the kernel. The question is whether the Google apps are also essential and inseparable which would tie them to the kernel as part of a derivative work (according to this interpretation which may or may not hold up in court).
      - Jach 8y ago
        It won't function without a kernel, but will it not function without the Linux kernel? Since the Solaris days with lxrun all the way through present time with Windows 10's linux subsystem and SmartOS's lx-branded zones, you could run Linux binaries (and entire distros) on a system without the Linux kernel, with various amounts of support/breakage. Still, no GPL2 kernel needed. I suspect that when a lawyer uses "essential and inseparable" they do not mean the same thing a technologist would mean. The GPL itself doesn't use that language, and anyway it's trivial to argue that a full OS distro isn't "based on" (the language of the GPL) the kernel itself.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

trasz 8y ago

Minor nit: Google didn't have to Open Source the whole Android because of Linux; Linux is just one of many components, and Linux' license doesn't apply to the rest of the software there.

LamaOfRuin 8y ago
This is always an interesting problem of definition and separation. If all the things google claims are absolutely essential and inseparable as part of 'Android' the license could well be interpreted as requiring them to open source all of it. If, on the other hand, these are all separate pieces of software and not totally dependent to deliver the end 'experience' then that contradicts some of Google's legal arguments.
- pertymcpert 8y ago
  The GPL issue is completely separate. The law regarding GPL and where is applies vs LGPL is well understood.
  - trasz 8y ago
    Not really, no. There's the FSF interpretation on one hand, but on the other there are companies like VMWare which happily put binary blobs into the Linux kernel and don't consider it a "derived work".
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      There are disagreements, but let's put it this way: If even the FSF would call it okay, then it's almost certainly okay. And the FSF will tell you that the kernel license doesn't infect user space.
- trasz 8y ago
  Has Google actually claimed the kernel is "essential and inseparable", or did they just do that wrt the closed-source Google apps, though?
  - LamaOfRuin 8y ago
    I don't consider that part up to Google's discretion. It simply doesn't function without the kernel. The question is whether the Google apps are also essential and inseparable which would tie them to the kernel as part of a derivative work (according to this interpretation which may or may not hold up in court).
    - Jach 8y ago
      It won't function without a kernel, but will it not function without the Linux kernel? Since the Solaris days with lxrun all the way through present time with Windows 10's linux subsystem and SmartOS's lx-branded zones, you could run Linux binaries (and entire distros) on a system without the Linux kernel, with various amounts of support/breakage. Still, no GPL2 kernel needed. I suspect that when a lawyer uses "essential and inseparable" they do not mean the same thing a technologist would mean. The GPL itself doesn't use that language, and anyway it's trivial to argue that a full OS distro isn't "based on" (the language of the GPL) the kernel itself.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]