4 ms·

As I wrote, the problem is not the license itself (although we see more and more problematic cases with liberally licensed software). The problem is that google

As I wrote, the problem is not the license itself (although we see more and more problematic cases with liberally licensed software). The problem is that google does it explicitly to support propietary modules better. If you don't see how removing legal, organizational, and technical obstacles to controlled devices helps this modern policy, I cannot help you. Besides, this is not about surveillance anymore, that battle has long been lost. This is about enforcement.

coldtea 5y ago
>The problem is that google does it explicitly to support propietary modules better. And you don't see far more use cases where "proprietary modules" are meant for, besides the one you've mentioned (which is already possible anyway)? Basically: to allow for a stable ecosystem for proprietary drivers for all kinds of devices (Fuscia will also be a desktop OS eventually)...
chalst 5y ago
> If you don't see how removing legal, organizational, and technical obstacles to controlled devices helps this modern policy, I cannot help you. As spijdar observes, with FreeBSD the legal and technical obstacles were removed long ago. I find the claims of doom to be so overworked in your post that I am not clear as to what organisational obstacles you are talking about: can you calm down and express this point more clearly?
- afiori 5y ago
  The argument would apply in the same way FreeBSD if google tried to move android to FreeBSD. The point is not that a kernel with such license exist, but rather that a major platform is moving from a GPL kernel to a non-GPL kernel. This will surely harm linux phones in the future. Whether it is the end of the world is something I do not know, but it is not a net positive for software and hardware freedom on mobile devices.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > with FreeBSD the legal and technical obstacles were removed long ago One obstacle is still there: it has too low market share.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    That depends how much you count macOS and PlayStation as part of that market share.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      In the context of this discussion, they do not seem relevant to me.

coldtea 5y ago

>The problem is that google does it explicitly to support propietary modules better. And you don't see far more use cases where "proprietary modules" are meant for, besides the one you've mentioned (which is already possible anyway)? Basically: to allow for a stable ecosystem for proprietary drivers for all kinds of devices (Fuscia will also be a desktop OS eventually)...

chalst 5y ago

> If you don't see how removing legal, organizational, and technical obstacles to controlled devices helps this modern policy, I cannot help you. As spijdar observes, with FreeBSD the legal and technical obstacles were removed long ago. I find the claims of doom to be so overworked in your post that I am not clear as to what organisational obstacles you are talking about: can you calm down and express this point more clearly?

afiori 5y ago
The argument would apply in the same way FreeBSD if google tried to move android to FreeBSD. The point is not that a kernel with such license exist, but rather that a major platform is moving from a GPL kernel to a non-GPL kernel. This will surely harm linux phones in the future. Whether it is the end of the world is something I do not know, but it is not a net positive for software and hardware freedom on mobile devices.
fsflover 5y ago
> with FreeBSD the legal and technical obstacles were removed long ago One obstacle is still there: it has too low market share.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  That depends how much you count macOS and PlayStation as part of that market share.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    In the context of this discussion, they do not seem relevant to me.