4 ms·
Google has been a Linux user since before it even existed [1], and has been almost exclusively a Linux shop since: Linux servers, Linux desktops (Chromebooks, G
by est31 8y ago
Google has been a Linux user since before it even existed [1], and has been almost exclusively a Linux shop since: Linux servers, Linux desktops (Chromebooks, Goobuntu, Whatever debian testing derived distro they are using now is called), Linux based phone OS.
So I'd say for most of its business activities, Google is actually okay with the GPL, otherwise they'd have rewritten it a long time ago. Given the size of Google and how important Android is to them, I think they'd have prioritized Fuchsia OS far more if their bottom line were really affected.
There is a point with drivers, as Fuchsia has better support for proprietary drivers than Linux and IIRC one of the Android modifications was to add HALs to the kernel to make proprietary drivers easier. But it's not a killer argument, after all they figured it out for Android.
Their business intent with Fuchsia is definitely not clear so it's a honey pot for speculation. I don't know. Maybe they wanted to diversify their approaches and have something if the Android kernel fork gets more and more patches and eventually backporting becomes impossible and they need to maintain it on their own now. Maybe they just want to be upstream as it involves a great deal or power that you have. Maybe it's part of a deal with a hardware vendor who wants their driver to become proprietary in the future.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/19971210065425/http://backrub.stanford.edu/backrub.html https://web.archive.org/web/19971210065425/http://backrub.st...
- altmind 8y agoAgree, android drivers/blobs were not much use in linux space => hence, the whole premise of android==linux, backporting features from android to linux was never an option. The ones who used rpi, or even cheap chinese android tables wo/ linux support can relate. Yes, google have nothing against GPL, but still GPL/agpl/lesser gpl are licenses that place specific limitations on a company modifying the original work. There are alternative licenses that do not.
- pjmlp 8y agoThey have been removing GPL parts from Android with each release, the only thing left is the kernel, which after Project Treble looks more like a pseudo-microkernel than traditional Linux.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kllrnohj 8y agoNone of this is even slightly true. The kernel is still on the "vendor" side of Project Treble, and still controlled by the OEM as a result (not that it should be but it is). This is not against "traditional linux" at all anyway. Upstream linux doesn't exactly like having a bunch of stuff rammed in as kernel modules either, that's why for example FUSE exists. As for "removing GPL parts" - Android started with minimal GPL parts in the first place but they haven't been actively removing GPL, either. Just look through AOSP for MODULE_LICENSE_GPL - you'll find a ton of components are still (L)GPL.
- pjmlp 8y agoAh so I am lying that GCC has been removed from the NDK. Where is the upstream support for HIDL IPC with kernel?
- ndesaulniers 8y agoHIDL ipc is built on top of binder, which is a kernel driver in mainline Linux.
- pjmlp 8y agoMy question was about the whole deal.
- jcfrei 8y ago> Their business intent with Fuchsia is definitely not clear so it's a honey pot for speculation. From what I've heard Fuchsia will feature a deeper integration of Google services than Android. Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhX6cANaJ6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhX6cANaJ6o