9 ms·

Android 16 QPR1 rolled out in binary-only form to phones that are blessed by Google over two months ago, and it's only just now that they bothered to actually r

Android 16 QPR1 rolled out in binary-only form to phones that are blessed by Google over two months ago, and it's only just now that they bothered to actually release the source of their open-source operating system.

bitpush 1y ago
> it's only just now that they bothered to actually release the source of their open-source operating system. Do you really need to have snark for an open source project?
- pseudosavant 1y ago
  I thought we were talking about the Android project? /sarcasm
- wongogue 1y ago
  A project which uses and depends on a lot of other third-party OSS? Maybe.
- josephcsible 1y ago
  Open-source projects maintained by individual developers working for free absolutely deserve more respect than that, but ones maintained by the most profitable company in the world [1] do not, especially when they go out of their way to change from doing the right thing to doing the wrong thing [2]. [1]: https://www.financecharts.com/screener/most-profitable https://www.financecharts.com/screener/most-profitable [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484927
  - goku12 1y ago
    > ..., especially when they go out of their way to change from doing the right thing to doing the wrong thing. And let's not forget this part. Android is a member of the mobile platform duopoly. Another similar project - Chrome - is almost a monopoly among web platforms. Both these projects exploit the open source label and most people's false belief that open source somehow equates to respect and protection of user rights. (Philosophically, it's only free software that cares about user rights. Both projects are textbook examples of non-free open source software.) This actually protects these projects to some extend from criticisms and penalties against the dark patterns that they employ to corrupt and exploit both the mobile and the web ecosystems. They absolutely don't deserve the same considerations as the passionate and underpaid small teams or individual maintainers.
- ehnto 1y ago
  It's Google, I think they've sucked up enough of our digital lives and economy to handle a bit of snark.
  - izacus 1y ago
    So why do you so badly want to use their operating system to care what they do and how they license it? It's their work, their OS and we have others.
    - dvdkon 1y ago
      Applying your argument more broadly, we shouldn't critique any product or changes made to it, and I don't see any reason why that should be true. Caring about the products you use is pretty standard behaviour, and when the product changes under the user's hands, it's normal to complain. It can resolve the issue faster and less painfully than switching products would.
      - izacus 1y ago
        No, my argument is not what you applied here. The fact of the matter is that Android is fully funded and developed by Google and you kinda don't have much standing to control what they do with their project and how - especially if all you can say is that their work is bad. You can be unhappy about it, but it doesn't change that its their work and their money on the line here with very little relationship to you or your wishes. You're not even a paying customer. This doesn't apply to "any product or changes" at large.
        guizadillas 1y ago
        wym we are not paying customers? every person with an android phone is a paying customer indirectly and can complain about its development
        izacus 1y ago
        You're a paying customer of Samsung et. al. You don't become a paying customer of Linus when you get a Thinkpad with Ubuntu.
- MarsIronPI 1y ago
  Yes. Precisely because it's "open source", not "free".
- estimator7292 1y ago
  Yes, open source requires snark just as much as tone policing
o11c 1y ago
And it is very important to remember: being able to do this is the reason why companies have brainwashed the Internet into choosing the MIT license for everything. With GPL-only code, the world would be much nicer for all of us.
- RicoElectrico 1y ago
  Why it seems that MPL is left out of the discussion? I find its clauses a reasonable middle ground.
- semi-extrinsic 1y ago
  Some of the reason why the MIT license etc. is more popular surely has to do with the license text itself. I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license. With the GPL, not so much. It's verbose and complex and has different versions. Would it really be impossible to have a license with similar brevity as MIT but similar consequences as GPL?
  - dtech 1y ago
    No, the MIT license is short exactly because it has so little restrictions. You simply can't encode the desired result of GPL into 160 words like MIT can.
  - debugnik 1y ago
    Brevity maybe, but ease of understanding no. Copyleft licenses interact with copyright law in ways that permissive licences just don't need to. The closest you can get is probably MPL-2.0. The GPL is particularly bad here as it pretends to define what is or isn't a derivative work, which is outside the scope of a licence but within the scope of a court. The EUPL was created partly because EU directives bound the viral clause in ways the FSF won't admit to, although that one isn't simple either (I'm not a fan of its compatibility clause).
  - graemep 1y ago
    > I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license. Sounds like you need a better lawyer. The consequences of the GPL are not all that complicated. In most cases it boils down to offering the source if you distribute the code outside your organisation.
rkagerer 1y ago
Have they been in breach of GPL terms during the intervening two months?
- jhasse 1y ago
  Most of Android isn't GPL, so I would guess not.

bitpush 1y ago

> it's only just now that they bothered to actually release the source of their open-source operating system. Do you really need to have snark for an open source project?

pseudosavant 1y ago
I thought we were talking about the Android project? /sarcasm
wongogue 1y ago
A project which uses and depends on a lot of other third-party OSS? Maybe.
josephcsible 1y ago
Open-source projects maintained by individual developers working for free absolutely deserve more respect than that, but ones maintained by the most profitable company in the world [1] do not, especially when they go out of their way to change from doing the right thing to doing the wrong thing [2]. [1]: https://www.financecharts.com/screener/most-profitable https://www.financecharts.com/screener/most-profitable [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484927
- goku12 1y ago
  > ..., especially when they go out of their way to change from doing the right thing to doing the wrong thing. And let's not forget this part. Android is a member of the mobile platform duopoly. Another similar project - Chrome - is almost a monopoly among web platforms. Both these projects exploit the open source label and most people's false belief that open source somehow equates to respect and protection of user rights. (Philosophically, it's only free software that cares about user rights. Both projects are textbook examples of non-free open source software.) This actually protects these projects to some extend from criticisms and penalties against the dark patterns that they employ to corrupt and exploit both the mobile and the web ecosystems. They absolutely don't deserve the same considerations as the passionate and underpaid small teams or individual maintainers.
ehnto 1y ago
It's Google, I think they've sucked up enough of our digital lives and economy to handle a bit of snark.
- izacus 1y ago
  So why do you so badly want to use their operating system to care what they do and how they license it? It's their work, their OS and we have others.
  - dvdkon 1y ago
    Applying your argument more broadly, we shouldn't critique any product or changes made to it, and I don't see any reason why that should be true. Caring about the products you use is pretty standard behaviour, and when the product changes under the user's hands, it's normal to complain. It can resolve the issue faster and less painfully than switching products would.
    - izacus 1y ago
      No, my argument is not what you applied here. The fact of the matter is that Android is fully funded and developed by Google and you kinda don't have much standing to control what they do with their project and how - especially if all you can say is that their work is bad. You can be unhappy about it, but it doesn't change that its their work and their money on the line here with very little relationship to you or your wishes. You're not even a paying customer. This doesn't apply to "any product or changes" at large.
      - guizadillas 1y ago
        wym we are not paying customers? every person with an android phone is a paying customer indirectly and can complain about its development
        izacus 1y ago
        You're a paying customer of Samsung et. al. You don't become a paying customer of Linus when you get a Thinkpad with Ubuntu.
MarsIronPI 1y ago
Yes. Precisely because it's "open source", not "free".
estimator7292 1y ago
Yes, open source requires snark just as much as tone policing

o11c 1y ago

And it is very important to remember: being able to do this is the reason why companies have brainwashed the Internet into choosing the MIT license for everything. With GPL-only code, the world would be much nicer for all of us.

RicoElectrico 1y ago
Why it seems that MPL is left out of the discussion? I find its clauses a reasonable middle ground.
semi-extrinsic 1y ago
Some of the reason why the MIT license etc. is more popular surely has to do with the license text itself. I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license. With the GPL, not so much. It's verbose and complex and has different versions. Would it really be impossible to have a license with similar brevity as MIT but similar consequences as GPL?
- dtech 1y ago
  No, the MIT license is short exactly because it has so little restrictions. You simply can't encode the desired result of GPL into 160 words like MIT can.
- debugnik 1y ago
  Brevity maybe, but ease of understanding no. Copyleft licenses interact with copyright law in ways that permissive licences just don't need to. The closest you can get is probably MPL-2.0. The GPL is particularly bad here as it pretends to define what is or isn't a derivative work, which is outside the scope of a licence but within the scope of a court. The EUPL was created partly because EU directives bound the viral clause in ways the FSF won't admit to, although that one isn't simple either (I'm not a fan of its compatibility clause).
- graemep 1y ago
  > I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license. Sounds like you need a better lawyer. The consequences of the GPL are not all that complicated. In most cases it boils down to offering the source if you distribute the code outside your organisation.

rkagerer 1y ago

Have they been in breach of GPL terms during the intervening two months?

jhasse 1y ago
Most of Android isn't GPL, so I would guess not.