4 ms·

Can you please give me the patched google internal kernel? It's GPL right?

by nix23 4y ago

fsckboy 4y ago
are you saying that a goal you support has not been achieved, or that it's a stupid goal?
rakoo 4y ago
You're not using it, only services on top of it, so you're not entitled to it. On the other hand, there's a reason Google forbids even spelling the letters AGPL, because then they might have to give you the source code. Copyleft doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
- nix23 4y ago
  >You're not using it, only services on top of it, so you're not entitled to it. So when i sit in a car (service) i don't use the Street (below the service)? But you are right, and that's exactly why the GPL is NOT preventing Closed-source software per se.
  - leonidasv 4y ago
    GPL talks only about "object code or executable form" as means of software distribution. When you ping a network server, it's not covered by the license. That's the whole point of AGPL: it covers network access as a mean of software distribution too.
    - nix23 4y ago
      That's what i wrote, and that's why i said the GPL is not preventing Closed-source systems...per se.
usr1106 4y ago
That's the main omission in the article. They claim if you modify the source of a GPL program you need to publish your modifications. That's just not correct. If you distribute a binary form of the modified program you need to make the source available. Google don't distribute their internal kernel, so they are not required to make their modifications available.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  do they hire contractors? cuz they distribute it to any contractors working on it and cannot add any restrictions to the GPL
  - rwmj 4y ago
    This isn't the commonly understood interpretation of the GPL.
  - usr1106 4y ago
    They don't distribute it to contractors, I am pretty sure. If contractors work on it they are under NDA, with no rights to use the code for any other purpose, so considered inside Google. If they weren't you would find many copies on github. Edit: I have no idea whether Google has contractors in such areas. I worked for a company of equal size many years ago and we had contractors everywhere. It was a massive bureaucracy to get access rights for what they needed to do their work, but in the end there was probably not much in the company that some contractor had not access to.

Can you please give me the patched google internal kernel? It's GPL right?

by nix23 4y ago

Can you please give me the patched google internal kernel? It's GPL right?

fsckboy 4y ago

are you saying that a goal you support has not been achieved, or that it's a stupid goal?

rakoo 4y ago

You're not using it, only services on top of it, so you're not entitled to it. On the other hand, there's a reason Google forbids even spelling the letters AGPL, because then they might have to give you the source code. Copyleft doing exactly what it's supposed to do.

nix23 4y ago
>You're not using it, only services on top of it, so you're not entitled to it. So when i sit in a car (service) i don't use the Street (below the service)? But you are right, and that's exactly why the GPL is NOT preventing Closed-source software per se.
- leonidasv 4y ago
  GPL talks only about "object code or executable form" as means of software distribution. When you ping a network server, it's not covered by the license. That's the whole point of AGPL: it covers network access as a mean of software distribution too.
  - nix23 4y ago
    That's what i wrote, and that's why i said the GPL is not preventing Closed-source systems...per se.

usr1106 4y ago

That's the main omission in the article. They claim if you modify the source of a GPL program you need to publish your modifications. That's just not correct. If you distribute a binary form of the modified program you need to make the source available. Google don't distribute their internal kernel, so they are not required to make their modifications available.

fsckboy 4y ago
do they hire contractors? cuz they distribute it to any contractors working on it and cannot add any restrictions to the GPL
- rwmj 4y ago
  This isn't the commonly understood interpretation of the GPL.
- usr1106 4y ago
  They don't distribute it to contractors, I am pretty sure. If contractors work on it they are under NDA, with no rights to use the code for any other purpose, so considered inside Google. If they weren't you would find many copies on github. Edit: I have no idea whether Google has contractors in such areas. I worked for a company of equal size many years ago and we had contractors everywhere. It was a massive bureaucracy to get access rights for what they needed to do their work, but in the end there was probably not much in the company that some contractor had not access to.