3 ms·
I hadn't heard that. Is that verifiable by any means at this point? It still doesn't justify the "open source" moniker, but it's still good.
by pingswept 15y ago
I hadn't heard that. Is that verifiable by any means at this point?
It still doesn't justify the "open source" moniker, but it's still good.
- wmf 15y agoThe kernel source was at http://android.git.kernel.org/ http://android.git.kernel.org/ but that server was subsequently destroyed in an unrelated incident and at this point you'd need a time machine to verify that it was really there and hasn't just been backdated, but yeah, it was available.
- dtparr 15y agoI suppose they could have backdated google groups, but here is JBQ's announcement of the 3.2 GPL's parts being released in July. http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/6410b44798c19d61 http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/6410b447... And here's a thread discussing building the 3.1 GPL'd code in May. http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_thread/thread/9a3f97ae7c69c10e/87e46e061c26aecf http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_threa...
- pingswept 15y agoThanks for the links; they're convincing. I'm surprised that Google hasn't made their GPL compliance here more prominent. It's something I've heard criticized, but it sounds like the criticisms are illegitimate.