6 ms·

> It is however, not Free Software, as it is Apache licensed The FSF considers the Apache license to be free software (and GPLv3 compatible) http://www.gnu.org

by micampe 16y ago

> It is however, not Free Software, as it is Apache licensed The FSF considers the Apache license to be free software (and GPLv3 compatible) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

wvenable 16y ago
You are right, FSF considers it a free software license but it's not a copyleft license. Google is not required to give out the code. It's compatible with the GPL because you can re-license Apache code under that license.
- micampe 16y ago
  I was only replying at your statement that Android is not free software: it is, by the letter of the law, even if it doesn't feel like it at all, in spirit.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    I don't know if my reply came off as hostile, but I am thankful for your correction. I'm quite surprised that the FSF is so forgiving about what they consider a Free Software License. These sorts of Android "shenanigans" seems like exactly the sort of thing they don't like.
    - fluidcruft 16y ago
      The FSF does not consider the closed software modifications shipped by vendors to be free software. Android is essentially a free-software project with many closed-source forks. The typical Android end user is not running free software (except for the copyleft portions where the vendors have no choice).
      - bad_user 16y ago
        The typical Android end user is not running free software This is a social problem -- what Open Source licenses do is to allow you to make forks in case you're unhappy with the way the project is being managed. If that's not a reasonable advantage and you still depend on the goodwill of the parent company for future versions -- then you're basically saying that open-source / free-software licenses are useless. Which is not true, as there are examples of famous forks available -- see XFree86 / Xorg; although forks don't happen so often because they take a lot of resources and energy, and there has to be enough incentive for a fork to survive.
        fluidcruft 16y ago
        While I agree in principle, you're perhaps glossing over the wave of handset TiVoization that is being championed by Motorola and now is spreading to HTC and others under the whitewash of "protecting the end-users". This prevents anyone except the manufacturer from updating or modifying even the most significant copyleft portions of Android (the kernel). Availability of free software is useless in that case. This is one of the "exploitable" weaknesses of GPLv2 that TiVo has pioneered and why GPLv3 was created. So, while yes, the Linux kernel on Motorola's recent phones is GPL free software, it's a moot point because you can't use anything except Motorola's blessed bits.
        bad_user 16y ago
        I'm going to quote Linus Torvalds on this: """ If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind ... [GPL.v3] crimps the style of mad scientists everywhere by also putting restrictions on the use of the source code. You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version """ Why do you assume that TiVo "exploited" a "weakness", when the software authors of prominent GPLv.2 projects (or other licenses that allow "tivoization") don't think that's the case? What did TiVo did so awful to call it an exploit and market a derogative term after them, trashing their brand? What "exploit" is there when you can make your own phones with Android's software on it? If you, as a software author (working hard on your software) do not want YOUR software to be used in the way TiVo did, then GPL.v3 is fine and has its place in the world certainly, but other than that, what the hell are people smoking?
    - bad_user 16y ago
      I am surprised that people talk about open source / free software, without knowing what it means. At the very least you should have your own coherent version of what "open" or "free" means for you, and that Android breaks, instead of putting "shenanigans" in quotes.
    - angusgr 16y ago
      I don't see how GPL would make much difference to Android here. Even if AOSP (Android Open Source Project) was GPL licensed, Google owns the copyright. Which means they can still make early releases to vendors (like Motorola for the Xoom) under a different license, and then make the public AOSP release under an OSS license later. This is no different from Trolltech's former model with Qt, or the dozens of other free software libraries where the developer makes some extra money from non-GPL Licensing on the side. The point is that Android 2.3 is Free Software, even if Android 3.0 is not Free Software yet. Google can't do anything to take back 2.3 now, it has freed it. <Speculation> I'd be very surprised if Motorola got Android 3.0 for the Xoom under any OSS license. I imagine it would have been given to them under a special proprietary NDA-equipped license, or maybe even only licensed as a binary. </Speculation>
      - wvenable 16y ago
        > Even if AOSP (Android Open Source Project) was GPL licensed, Google owns the copyright. Does Google own the copyright to contributed code? I assume the Android project contains patches from outside developers and they don't require copyright to be assigned to Google.
        angusgr 16y ago
        That's a very good point, even besides the contributions there are some Apache licensed components in AOSP that Google have brought in themselves rather than had donated. I guess in my hypothetical scenario, they could relicense them as GPL but then they'd have redistribution requirements via GPL virality - at least for those bits. Or they'd need to restructure their parts of the project around them to avoid the viral aspect, like they have for the Linux kernel. I guess my point is more that not every part of every Free Software project is always released to the public under that license. "Android 3.0 is not Free Software yet, but will be" is not that different to other common OSS project scenarios.
        ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        But if they were GPL only, it's much more likely they'd ask for assigned copyright, in order to achieve the same thing. To be completely 110% "open" you'd GPL (or even AGPL) and not ask for assignment, which would level the playing field for everyone. But it's not common for business sponsored projects, or required to be Free Software. And again, even RMS accepts that there are strategic reasons to use non-copyleft licences for e.g. audio and video codecs as widespread adoption of proprietary alternatives would harm Free Software.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  I find copyleft stipulations a bit overdone, personally. Software licensed under the Apache license can match Stallman's traditional definition of Free Software if the maintainer chooses to do so, and that's why it's considered a Free Software license. Even the GPL won't bring someone who doesn't care about free software into compliance; just take a glance at ffmpeg's Hall of Shame [1]. [1] http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html
- bad_user 16y ago
  Even if the license would have been GPL, they wouldn't have been required to release the source-code immediately. The time it takes to release the source-code only has to be reasonable, not instant.

by micampe 16y ago

wvenable 16y ago

You are right, FSF considers it a free software license but it's not a copyleft license. Google is not required to give out the code. It's compatible with the GPL because you can re-license Apache code under that license.

micampe 16y ago
I was only replying at your statement that Android is not free software: it is, by the letter of the law, even if it doesn't feel like it at all, in spirit.
- wvenable 16y ago
  I don't know if my reply came off as hostile, but I am thankful for your correction. I'm quite surprised that the FSF is so forgiving about what they consider a Free Software License. These sorts of Android "shenanigans" seems like exactly the sort of thing they don't like.
  - fluidcruft 16y ago
    The FSF does not consider the closed software modifications shipped by vendors to be free software. Android is essentially a free-software project with many closed-source forks. The typical Android end user is not running free software (except for the copyleft portions where the vendors have no choice).
    - bad_user 16y ago
      The typical Android end user is not running free software This is a social problem -- what Open Source licenses do is to allow you to make forks in case you're unhappy with the way the project is being managed. If that's not a reasonable advantage and you still depend on the goodwill of the parent company for future versions -- then you're basically saying that open-source / free-software licenses are useless. Which is not true, as there are examples of famous forks available -- see XFree86 / Xorg; although forks don't happen so often because they take a lot of resources and energy, and there has to be enough incentive for a fork to survive.
      - fluidcruft 16y ago
        While I agree in principle, you're perhaps glossing over the wave of handset TiVoization that is being championed by Motorola and now is spreading to HTC and others under the whitewash of "protecting the end-users". This prevents anyone except the manufacturer from updating or modifying even the most significant copyleft portions of Android (the kernel). Availability of free software is useless in that case. This is one of the "exploitable" weaknesses of GPLv2 that TiVo has pioneered and why GPLv3 was created. So, while yes, the Linux kernel on Motorola's recent phones is GPL free software, it's a moot point because you can't use anything except Motorola's blessed bits.
        bad_user 16y ago
        I'm going to quote Linus Torvalds on this: """ If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind ... [GPL.v3] crimps the style of mad scientists everywhere by also putting restrictions on the use of the source code. You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version """ Why do you assume that TiVo "exploited" a "weakness", when the software authors of prominent GPLv.2 projects (or other licenses that allow "tivoization") don't think that's the case? What did TiVo did so awful to call it an exploit and market a derogative term after them, trashing their brand? What "exploit" is there when you can make your own phones with Android's software on it? If you, as a software author (working hard on your software) do not want YOUR software to be used in the way TiVo did, then GPL.v3 is fine and has its place in the world certainly, but other than that, what the hell are people smoking?
  - bad_user 16y ago
    I am surprised that people talk about open source / free software, without knowing what it means. At the very least you should have your own coherent version of what "open" or "free" means for you, and that Android breaks, instead of putting "shenanigans" in quotes.
  - angusgr 16y ago
    I don't see how GPL would make much difference to Android here. Even if AOSP (Android Open Source Project) was GPL licensed, Google owns the copyright. Which means they can still make early releases to vendors (like Motorola for the Xoom) under a different license, and then make the public AOSP release under an OSS license later. This is no different from Trolltech's former model with Qt, or the dozens of other free software libraries where the developer makes some extra money from non-GPL Licensing on the side. The point is that Android 2.3 is Free Software, even if Android 3.0 is not Free Software yet. Google can't do anything to take back 2.3 now, it has freed it. <Speculation> I'd be very surprised if Motorola got Android 3.0 for the Xoom under any OSS license. I imagine it would have been given to them under a special proprietary NDA-equipped license, or maybe even only licensed as a binary. </Speculation>
    - wvenable 16y ago
      > Even if AOSP (Android Open Source Project) was GPL licensed, Google owns the copyright. Does Google own the copyright to contributed code? I assume the Android project contains patches from outside developers and they don't require copyright to be assigned to Google.
      - angusgr 16y ago
        That's a very good point, even besides the contributions there are some Apache licensed components in AOSP that Google have brought in themselves rather than had donated. I guess in my hypothetical scenario, they could relicense them as GPL but then they'd have redistribution requirements via GPL virality - at least for those bits. Or they'd need to restructure their parts of the project around them to avoid the viral aspect, like they have for the Linux kernel. I guess my point is more that not every part of every Free Software project is always released to the public under that license. "Android 3.0 is not Free Software yet, but will be" is not that different to other common OSS project scenarios.
      - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        But if they were GPL only, it's much more likely they'd ask for assigned copyright, in order to achieve the same thing. To be completely 110% "open" you'd GPL (or even AGPL) and not ask for assignment, which would level the playing field for everyone. But it's not common for business sponsored projects, or required to be Free Software. And again, even RMS accepts that there are strategic reasons to use non-copyleft licences for e.g. audio and video codecs as widespread adoption of proprietary alternatives would harm Free Software.
cookiecaper 16y ago
I find copyleft stipulations a bit overdone, personally. Software licensed under the Apache license can match Stallman's traditional definition of Free Software if the maintainer chooses to do so, and that's why it's considered a Free Software license. Even the GPL won't bring someone who doesn't care about free software into compliance; just take a glance at ffmpeg's Hall of Shame [1]. [1] http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html
bad_user 16y ago
Even if the license would have been GPL, they wouldn't have been required to release the source-code immediately. The time it takes to release the source-code only has to be reasonable, not instant.