4 ms·

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 m

by 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.

by angusgr 16y ago

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.