9 ms·

Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code

829 points by Animux 2mo ago

beeforpork 1mo ago
They are shutting it down. Same agenda as with the ban on side-loading.
Magicrafter13 1mo ago
I really hope the courts just utterly destroy Google one day. Society would be better off, regardless of the collateral.
dgellow 2mo ago
Quoting the first tweet: > Google replaced pushing Git tags for certain source code with obtaining source code via Google Drive after making a request through Google Forms. It's completely ridiculous and they've gradually become very slow at handling requests. They're in clear violation of the GPLv2 now.
- rlpb 2mo ago
  Didn't Google work very hard to avoid any GPL in Android, apart from the kernel? What is in there that is GPL?
  - cute_boi 2mo ago
    I assume Linux. I am very thankful linux is gpl. Because of GPL these tech giants are forced to release source code.
    - ares623 1mo ago
      But Linux allowed Tivoization though.
      - hedora 1mo ago
        There are worse things than Tivoization. Google helped lobby the FSF to adopt GPLv3, which bans tivoization, but allows software as a service. This is why you cannot have bash on MacOS, but Google can still use it to build surveillance capitalism, and arbitrarily enshittify your word processor.
        deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
- gowld 2mo ago
  How slow is "very slow" ? What is "certain source code"? Why is the OP being so coy about describing the problem? Here is the form: https://source.android.com/opensourcerequest https://source.android.com/opensourcerequest This is interesting: > We might charge you a fee to cover the cost of processing. Your request must be sent according to whichever of the following rules applies: > Within three years of the date you received the product from Google that included the component or binary files that are the subject of your request. That "three years" is the minimum named in the GPLv2: https://opensource.org/license/gpl-2.0 https://opensource.org/license/gpl-2.0
  - HarlequinHair 2mo ago
    > How slow is "very slow?" The answer can be found two replies after: > Initially, Google would usually provide access to the tarballs within a couple hours. Lately, they're often taking weeks to get back to us. They're the ones who chose to use this archaic system instead of pushing Git tags and it's their responsibility to handle requests promptly. > What is "certain source code"? The OP seems to be GrapheneOS, which heavy patches AOSP. I guess the context is Android source code and its security patches. > Why is the OP being so coy about describing the problem? Not sure what you mean, I think they are explicit enough. I guess it's clear enough for developers how an upstream update should go. If people depend on big projects like AOSP, devs should be prompt in delivering source code, especially when it is mandatory by license. Can you give us more details on how/why you think the OP is being coy?
    - grapheneos 1mo ago
      It isn't about AOSP but rather the Pixel OS. Android 16 dropped support for Pixels from AOSP but we're still entitled to receiving the subset of the code derived from GPL/LGPL projects. We need the Pixel kernel driver sources for each stable and beta release. We're entitled to getting those in a reasonable amount of time. Weeks of delays is not reasonable for one of the largest tech companies in the world. They could simply share a folder with us and put all of the releases in that folder so we don't need to request each release. They're going out of the way to make it difficult by requiring us to separately request it for every single release we want. Initially, it was consistently provided in under a business day. Recently, they've regularly been taking weeks or more to provide it. It's likely going to take longer now that more people are aware of it since they're going to receive more requests for it. They could simply push it to a repository on GitHub instead of assigning employees to do this manually. If for some reason they don't want to do that, they could at least automate it. For example, they could give us access to a folder with all the releases. Needing to request every single release tag is ridiculous.
- petcat 2mo ago
  > They're in clear violation of the GPLv2 now. I don't think they are? They could just as easily require requests for the source code to be made through the regular mail instead of a Google form. It's still (maliciously) compliant with the license.
  - logological 1mo ago
    > I don't think they are? If filling out the source code request form via Google Forms and/or accessing the download link via Google Drive requires the requester to run non-free (or at least non-GPLv2) JavaScript, then maybe it is in violation of section 6 of the GPLv2 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein") since the requester is then required to accept an entirely different set of licensing terms and conditions.
    - nomel 1mo ago
      IANAL, but I don't think you're interpreting that correctly. I believe section 3.b and 3.c are the rights this is referring to, where you can request the source, and even be changed for the physical act. Suggesting this extends to the license of the implementation of their contact system doesn't make sense. No method of contact, except physical, is going to meet your requirements, including sending postage, where the software used to sort your mail is not GPL.
      - r3trohack3r 1mo ago
        I think it’s nuanced I can see an argument that Google is requiring you to enter into a separate agreement with them (the terms they require you to agree to when using Google Forms) to request access to the GPL licensed source. You do not enter into an agreement with the vendor of the software the postal service uses to sort your mail.
        Dylan16807 1mo ago
        If they do force you into google forms and you can't send a letter then that's a potential issue. Making you run javascript is a weaker argument...
spydum 2mo ago
isn't this just malicious compliance? not clear how this would violate GPLv2?
- osmsucks 2mo ago
  Yeah, I agree. While this is a terrible move IMHO, from my superficial reading of the GPLv2 it doesn't really constitute a violation: the license imposes that the source be distributed to anyone who asks, potentially even charge a fee to cover its distribution costs, but it doesn't require that development happen in the open.
  - shevy-java 1mo ago
    I mean, the only way to test this is to require of Google here to release the source code. And then look at how a court will evaluate it. For instance, what if Google never sends the source code? What if they claim that no request made it in? Though I guess this can be ensured, e. g. via letter that is registered being sent and then looking at Google's response to it. So right now I think we all probably do not know. Google MIGHT refuse to release the source code, but it could release it - we don't know yet. Someone has to test that.
    - osmsucks 1mo ago
      > For instance, what if Google never sends the source code? What if they claim that no request made it in? That would be a violation of the license terms. All Google has done so far is, apparently, to make it hella annoying to access the source code (but not impossible).
  - grapheneos 1mo ago
    GPL not defining a time limit to comply also doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable limit on compliance time. Google is more than capable of quickly complying. It comes down to whether a judge would think what they're doing is reasonable and we don't think they would. The software also isn't in the preferred form for modification. The build system which runs Git commands and doesn't work as intended without it. You have to make a Git repository for it to work and there's meant to be a separate one for each separate component. It spews out errors.
jmole 2mo ago
“In violation of GPL” is a stretch. Can’t imagine Google is making the process of obtaining source code easier on themselves though. Android has always been more source-open than “open source”. The vast majority of community contributions that make it into the codebase are security fixes and small bug fixes. Everything else is essentially all the work of Google and (to some extent) Samsung.
- ajross 2mo ago
  > “In violation of GPL” is a stretch. The originally envisioned distribution method, in fact, was "Send FSF a blank 9-track tape and they'll fill it and mail it back". Nor, obviously, does anything prevent someone who downloads this from Drive from mirroring it on GitHub or wherever. This is arguably bad stewardship of a historically open source project. It's certainly not a license violation.
  - Brian_K_White 2mo ago
    It's paying a bill in pennies.
    - ajross 2mo ago
      It's not even that. Downstream projects host their own mirrors already, this is an annoying hoop to jump through for the maintainers (basically suck down a bunch of tarballs for every release, analogous to grabbing stuff from FTP sites back in the day), but not exactly a terrible hardship compared to the really very significant work of maintaining a large project.
      - simoncion 2mo ago
        There might be some merit to a claim that Google Drive isn't a medium customarily used for software distribution these days, but, yeah, it's definitely not paying a thousand+ cent bill in pennies, and I'm skeptical that it's a violation of the letter of the GPL. It is definitely a dick move by Google.
izacus 2mo ago
Source code of which components is that? It's not very clear from the mastodon thread.
- hskimse 1mo ago
  Maybe AOSP source code
  - grapheneos 1mo ago
    It's not AOSP but rather Pixels. Pixels are no longer support by AOSP. They went out of the way to no longer push any of the Pixel specific repositories or releases to AOSP. The impact is mainly that Pixels are now harder to support than a lot of other devices rather than easier. They'll sell far fewer Pixels over time because of these decisions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369087
    - hskimse 1mo ago
      I didn't know Pixel maintained its own kernel patches. And if there is a delay in providing that code to Pixel buyers, from my perspective, that looks like a violation of the GPL.
- grapheneos 1mo ago
  Pixel kernel drivers. We mirror the source code on GitLab. We put the upstream 17 code in the 17-base branch and our code on top of it in the 17 branch: https://gitlab.com/grapheneos/kernel_pixel/-/tree/17-base https://gitlab.com/grapheneos/kernel_pixel/-/tree/17-base https://gitlab.com/grapheneos/kernel_pixel_muzel/-/tree/17-base https://gitlab.com/grapheneos/kernel_pixel_muzel/-/tree/17-b... We also have mirrors of the QPR1 Beta and QPR2 Beta code there too.
cute_boi 2mo ago
I think leadership in Google is getting worst day by day. The main reason to use Android is mostly sideloading and open source and they are trying to sabotage both.
- bitpush 2mo ago
  What is the alternative?
  - Cider9986 1mo ago
    GrapheneOS
  - Zigurd 1mo ago
    HarmonyOS?
    - rurban 1mo ago
      Hopefully. I don't trust them neither, but they do have no powers over me.
    - bitpush 1mo ago
      Isn't HarmonyOS Chinese? The alternative you're proposing is using Chinese OS?
      - Zigurd 1mo ago
        Yes but it's only a viable alternative if they do better at supporting the open source community.
demibabs 2mo ago
Can someone explain what this means? Am not familiar with the terminology
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- pydry 2mo ago
  Google apparently wants everybody to know how much they hate abiding by the terms of open source licenses.
- paxys 2mo ago
  Google uses libraries licensed under GPLv2 in Android (I’m not sure which specific part of Android the author is talking about), and so is required to make the full source code available for anyone to view. They previously used to publish release tag tarballs, but now require you to fill out a Google form and then (weeks later) will share the source with you on Google Drive.
  - thayne 1mo ago
    Android is built on the linux kernel which uses GPLv2
- Zigurd 1mo ago
  It means Google is making it harder than it needs to be to obtain source code. It's a dick move, and the only plausible interpretations are that it will get harder still, and it's intended to slow down projects like GrapheneOS. Even if it can be lawyered to be in the letter of the open source licenses that apply, it's not in the spirit of those licenses.
hatthew 2mo ago
If you're like me and struggled to parse the title, my understanding is, "To obtain certain source code from Google, you could previously reference git tags, but now you have to fill out a form and wait for a human to give you a google drive link."
- aleph_minus_one 1mo ago
  > "To obtain certain source code from Google, you could previously reference git tags, but now you have to fill out a form and wait for a human to give you a google drive link." Couldn't simply someone mirror these Google Drive folders?
  - mjg59 1mo ago
    Yes, but that person still needs to file a request and wait several days
    - aleph_minus_one 1mo ago
      But after one person does this, the source code access is a solved problem.
      - mjg59 1mo ago
        But nobody has done this, which is why it's a problem for Graphene
        beanjuiceII 1mo ago
        Maybe should someone should do it then?
        mjg59 1mo ago
        They are, which is how they know how long it's taking.
        1mo ago
shevy-java 1mo ago
Google needs to lose in court here. This company is getting more and more evil by the day.
matheusmoreira 2mo ago
Every year a new low.
g-b-r 1mo ago
Let's just forget about the tags, the point is that they're not publishing what Graphene OS needs on any git repository that they can access. Even before that it had been jokes of repositories, but at least you didn't have to ask for someone every time and wait for them to respond to the request. (that's my understanding)
- ProAm 1mo ago
  i.e. its no longer open source, now access is granted by permission.
  - pas 1mo ago
    what does the license say? provide source when asked or publish source? OSI is not clear on this either. ("Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, [...]")
    - ProAm 1mo ago
      Spirit of the law vs Letter of the law argument. Which ever side of the coin you stand on.
    - nextaccountic 1mo ago
      Google became one of those OEMs that drag their feet and make it a hassle to publish the source code. This happens because they are not interested in open source Android anymore
    - wakawaka28 1mo ago
      I hate to be that guy but publishing source online for free theoretically involves unbounded distribution costs that can't be recovered. That isn't the issue here but it should be considered before changing a license.
      - ProAm 1mo ago
dataflow 1mo ago
Can't help but wonder if making it costly for themselves the entire point. So that they can later turn around and bill that distribution fee to the recipient.
torgeros 1mo ago
That's like this fun fact where Microsoft needs to send you source code via post when you mail them a 5$ check. lol
gumby 1mo ago
GPL says that you can give that link to anyone you want. If someone on HN has received one of these links, feel free to post it here.
- m463 1mo ago
  I think - if the code is in fact GPL - you can give the code to anyone you want. But I would think the link is access to google's servers, which might be different.
- jeroenhd 1mo ago
  Not the links per se (those are subject to terms of service), but the contents downloaded for those links are free to share. Anyone can throw them up in their own git repository or upload them to Github.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 1mo ago
    When did torrenting die?
evolve2k 1mo ago
Shameful acts.
shevy-java 1mo ago
I don't think the real focus is on the tags, but on the delay here via a form as well as human interaction. Worded differently, the simplest way to provide the source code is IMO via a URL that you can just wget. At the least this is done by so many projects out there. Google refusing to do so means Google wants to violate the GPLv2, since their alternatives are inferior. https://distrowatch.com/ https://distrowatch.com/ has many convenient links to URLs on the left side; I often use that to download the latest and greatest and compile it away, e. g. https://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.20.27/bind-9.20.27.tar.xz https://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.20.27/bind-9.20.27.tar.xz as a current example, taken from the left panel.
- bitpush 1mo ago
  > Google refusing to do so means Google wants to violate the GPLv2 Not an expert in GPL, but does it say that the source code needs to be provided by a url?
  - devy 1mo ago
    GPL doesn't require them to publish the source in git. FWIW, Google can be compliant and publish the source in Physical Medium too if they opt too. Also, the OP did mentioned that Google also squashed the git commit to a single commit for whatever reason.
    - mikestorrent 1mo ago
      Can't wait for pallets of paper to get shipped out to comply maliciously
      - mjg59 1mo ago
        The license requires that it be distributed on a medium customarily used for software interchange, and I don't think you'd stand a good chance of arguing that paper satisfies that.
        1mo ago
sunshine-o 1mo ago
The era of big tech cooperation around free software is obviously over. Those kind of moves are petty but there are worst tricks they can pull unfortunately. It seems Grapheneos is the rare actor willing to put up a fight nowadays, and their "partnership" with Motorola seems to be a first step. They need to ensure a hardware platform. My guess is at some point they will have to fork AOSP, just because Google will take it in directions that go against Grapheneos principles.
- palata 1mo ago
  > My guess is at some point they will have to fork AOSP I am still sad that Huawei didn't go this way, I thought they would with HarmonyOS. I wonder if it could happen at some point that an alternative Android becomes so big that OEMs start supporting it. It feels like it may be interesting for the big Android manufacturers to support something like GrapheneOS? I wonder: for those Motorola phones that will come with GrapheneOS, won't that make it cheaper for Motorola because they won't have to pay the Google licence (because those GrapheneOS-Motorola phone won't be Google-certified)?
  - sunshine-o 1mo ago
    > I wonder if it could happen at some point that an alternative Android becomes so big that OEMs start supporting it. I think this is the huge battle GrapheneOS won with Motorola. There are probably a few manufacturers of phones unhappy or nervous regarding Google. The next battle is really on the app front. Once a country says our government and bank apps need to run on the fork of AOSP then you will start to have a real alternative to the Google/Apple (and now Huawei) duopoly. My guess is there are a lot of candidate countries for breaking out of the American/Chinese grab on every smartphones. So in a way the future could look bright as long as we support GrapheneOS and Motorola.
  - Eueudhsbsj32 1mo ago
    > I wonder: for those Motorola phones that will come with GrapheneOS, won't that make it cheaper for Motorola because they won't have to pay the Google licence (because those GrapheneOS-Motorola phone won't be Google-certified)? There's been no confirmation that any phones will come pre-installed with GrapheneOS from Motorola, just that some phones will be compatible. My guess is Google is already applying pressure on Motorola to make sure every phone still ships with standard Android from the factory.
PunchyHamster 1mo ago
I have feeling that is related to their upcoming changes that make sideloading harder
TheMiddleMan 1mo ago
Relevant: https://keepandroidopen.org/ https://keepandroidopen.org/ > Starting in 2027*, a silent update, nonconsensually pushed by Google, will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID.
- paxys 1mo ago
  Doesn’t Apple do the same?
  - sunaookami 1mo ago
    The difference is that Apple always did it with iOS and Google did not. Many chose Android because of that.
  - EastSmith 1mo ago
    Does it matter that Apple does the same?
  - croes 1mo ago
    Did Apple claim iOS is open source?
    - paxys 1mo ago
      AOSP is open source. The Android running on most manufacturer-branded phones isn’t.
    - mikestorrent 1mo ago
      Well, https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu is, but it's not enough to make you an iPhone.
    - izacus 1mo ago
      So you're saying Google should stop open sourcing Android? That should like a bad incentive to make to defend Apple.
el1s7 1mo ago
It's a bit unclear what this is about exactly. What releases are we talking about? How git tags come into play here?
- zb3 1mo ago
  Pixel kernel drivers which are GPLv2, you need them to build the kernel modules from source. Git tags in this case refer to beta versions, but it being "beta" doesn't mean they can delay the release.
cdrnsf 1mo ago
Give them a few years and they'll only provide it by printing out a copy and mailing it to you.
- RachelF 1mo ago
  Don't give them ideas!
  - eredengrin 1mo ago
    Seriously, if we keep this up they'll be sending us pallets of punch cards before you know it.
a-dub 1mo ago
hanlon's razor comes to mind. which trees are these? weird device trees that have complicated third party licensing nonsense attached? i remember jumping through crazy hoops to interact with a google open source project years ago. i wouldn't be surprised if it's just megacorp bureaucracy.
dminik 1mo ago
I really don't understand the thought process here. Judging by public statements, Google is one of the 3 big western AI companies. Surely they should be rolling in cash and working hard towards AGI. And yet, for whatever reason, they can't help themselves from further restricting user freedoms on Android. Why? I don't want to be conspiratorial, but surely it's not money, right? It has to be control. Someone high up at Google just seems to resent people having control over their own devices.
- shalom1112 1mo ago
  [dead]
- KetoManx64 1mo ago
  Both. Google has plenty of government contracts, they are undoubtedly pushing for more surveillance, and also on the inverse side, we are now in an age where users can create their own apps to do whatever they want within a few hours, sothis risks their Google Play Store profits
  - gruez 1mo ago
    >Both. Google has plenty of government contracts, they are undoubtedly pushing for more surveillance, I don't get it, are the government contracts somehow contingent on them oppressing users and stifling open source? >we are now in an age where users can create their own apps to do whatever they want within a few hours, sothis risks their Google Play Store profits If that's the reason, they're doing a pretty poor job, since it's trivially bypassable by running "adb install".
    - ivell 1mo ago
      It probably is slow-boiling. Many things have been slow-boiled for so long that majority of us were caught sleeping at the wheels. The day probably would come where Google does open sourcing just for namesake that too for insignificant piece of software. And other companies will follow suite. There would be time where everything thing will locked up and monitored. I am so thankful that the PC revolution happened way before app stores and there was a period of open source culture and open formats etc.
IshKebab 1mo ago
This is a direct consequence of their loss to Epic. They saw Apple win because they didn't have any competition to stifle, and they want the same. Pretty shit.
QuantumNoodle 1mo ago
Yo Louis Rossmann, do your thing!
grapheneos 1mo ago
They stopped pushing tags for any of the Pixel kernel or userspace driver repositories to AOSP. They also stopped pushing AOSP releases specific to Pixels which is why AOSP now only gets yearly releases, QPR2 releases and security backports to both of those. Other OEMs use the yearly and theoretically also the QPR2 releases. Both the yearly and QPR2 releases get monthly security backports. Since they dropped Pixel support from AOSP, they don't push the releases not shipped by other OEMs anymore. These changes directly led to our Motorola partnership. One of their security people reached out to us after seeing our posts about this with the launch of Android 16. We haven't talked about it much since then since we adapted to it during the several weeks it delayed our Android 16 port. We then continued adapting to it and have fully worked around it. It was an ongoing problem but not a new one and we had accepted we had to deal with it as the new normal. They were previously responding to our kernel source requests within a day. It was often done without hours. Despite the archaic system, this part wasn't that bad. Recently, they've been taking weeks or longer to get back to us for the requests which is ridiculous. It's the direct result of purposely adding a lot of friction with manual handling of the requests even if the delays weren't directly planned by management. Weeks or months of delay is not reasonable for one of the largest tech companies in the world. GPL doesn't set a standard time limit for providing the sources, but that doesn't mean they can delay it indefinitely. They need to do it in a reasonable amount of time. What's reasonable for one of the largest tech companies in the world in 2026 with current technology is not the same as what was reasonable 30 years ago. Google chose to come up with a archaic way of distributing the sources involving someone manually going through a list and sharing Google Drive access. It's a deliberate way of making it painful. If they can't keep up with it and it gets delayed for weeks or months then they're not complying with the GPL by not providing it in a reasonable amount of time. Law is not code and a time limit not being explicitly written down doesn't mean there isn't a limit to what's reasonable for compliance. They'll sell far fewer Pixels because of these overall changes. It pushes GrapheneOS and other projects towards other devices instead. For us, Pixels are being used due to security rather than ease of supporting them. It's now a lot harder to deal with Pixels than it would be for many other devices but they're currently still the most secure option. We're working on changing that and have a lot less reason to contribute to improving Pixels. We helped them fix serious security weaknesses for Pixels including vulnerabilities being exploited in the wild by forensic data extraction companies. Pixel security with the stock OS would be worse without GrapheneOS.
zephen 1mo ago
Many commenters agree this is not a nice move by google. But is there any reason that google might have that they feel is legitimate? For example, delaying releasing source until they've had a chance to update all the pixels with security patches might be good from their perspective, to reduce zero-day exploits for people they are supporting.
- hedora 1mo ago
  This just breaks legitimate downstream distros that target Pixel devices. Ransomware gangs, etc still get red carpet service.
  - zephen 1mo ago
    So all the non-pixel-specific stuff is in a publicly accessible repo? So the pixel team just decided that they wanted to keep their kimono mostly closed?
    - hedora 1mo ago
      Yes, but that’s the only reference android device, so the whole ecosystem is getting pretty close to completely locked down. Google is going to require devs to register, pay and get permission to publish Android software sometime next year. Locking pixel owners out of third party operating systems means they get to force pixel owners to hand control over their devices and applications to Google. The motorola / GrapheneOS partnership gives me some hope though. Maybe when the pendulum swings back in 2028, the US will pass consumer protection laws, and we’ll have the right to import devices that allow open ROMs, and demand they be supported by cell networks. (I doubt the moderate democrats would support this, but I’d guess the DSA candidates could be convinced to.)
water-data-dude 1mo ago
"Free" as in "free to play by our rules or suffer"
exabrial 1mo ago
Google's intent is to make web development and mobile development so complex that you have to rely on their browser or other means to get anything done.
xiaoyu2006 1mo ago
Classical not being evil stuff by Google.
- m463 1mo ago
  The third reich loved administrative processes too.
- genxy 1mo ago
  Removed don't be evil. "Don't be a dick" was never on the list. Yeah, this is a total dick move.
zx8080 1mo ago
Is it about Android code? Could this be related to the upcoming change (close) of the apk side-loading?
- palata 1mo ago
  I don't think it is directly related, other than Google being Google and deserving big big fines for being evil.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
raphinou 1mo ago
But why? What can be the internal justification? What do they think they win by doing this?
- D4Ha 1mo ago
  Difficult to say at the moment, but there might be some speculation as to why. One might be that they dont security patches reverse engineered and vulnerabilities to come out faster (some critical and high severity fixes in GPU drivers/bootloaders were often delayed), and this decision was done long before LLMs were considered powerful/useful for vulnerability research. Second reason might be simply "Control of the android ecosystem", Google may just want to build a wall around android and make it frustrating for other vendors to compete. Third, again, this is only speculation, is the current push for electronic ID in the EU and other countries, as well as DRM/copyright protections for media and locally ran LLMs (we've heard of how google pushed small LLMs with chrome updates), if they can do the same on some high end android devices, Google would be more invested into further locking down Android devices.
  - jezek2 1mo ago
    It can be also a temporary obstacle until they get rid of Linux kernel and replace it with kernel from Fuchsia or something.
d_finch 1mo ago
Switching from Git tags to Google Drive downloads technically satisfies GPL but makes it much harder for downstream projects to track changes. The inconvenience is the point.
Havoc 1mo ago
Google doing anti competitive bullshit? Never
Brian_K_White 1mo ago
RE satisfying GPL, the google drive thing is annoying, and I called it paying a bill in pennies in another comment, But RedHat is 100x worse. They might actually be violating the gpl because of the attempt to set terms on redistribution and the retaliation (kill your account and block future access) if you do.
teekert 1mo ago
We need something other than Android, and we need the government to make sure we can run Android apps (like government ID and banking apps) without being spied on. They've been doing whatever the f they like for long enough if you ask me.
- qwertox 1mo ago
  No government would like you to use anything else but iOS or a major vendor's Android distribution. Imagine we'd had the freedom... unacceptable.
- tonyhart7 1mo ago
  Huawei have harmony OS that can run android app right ??? EU can have their own counter part but no one footing the bill
- fsflover 1mo ago
  > We need something other than Android postmarketOS, Mobian, PureOS, and many more already exist. Support them, if you think it's important.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
hnc3yfnu6f 1mo ago
Yep. Every single time.
doe88 1mo ago
What's the point of Android if not of being open?!! I don't see any value for them to be closed or combative. It's sad to see Google, once the greatest company on earth, lose absolutely everything of what they made them great in just a matter of a couple of years.
- thyristan 1mo ago
  The purpose of Android for Google is to push users into paid services, Google search, collect some play store fees and some data. None of that actually requires Android to be really open. Just saying something about "open" works as advertisement though...
  - g-b-r 1mo ago
    I think data is the first purpose by far, and I wouldn't describe it as "some"
nikunj1809 1mo ago
Oh ! What would be the impact?
hamilyon2 1mo ago
For Pixel drivers, is there something that prevents Google from relicensing them to proprietary and not share any source at all?
- rwmj 1mo ago
  At least in theory, the drivers being linked to the kernel and using the GPL symbols from the kernel means the drivers could be covered by the GPL whatever Google's intended license was. I'm sure they have $$$$ lawyers who have looked into this.
hn_submit 1mo ago
Yep, GrapheneOS is becoming too popular and Google is reacting in a manner that's not conducive with its "don't be evil" adage.
kazinator 1mo ago
Speaking of inconvenience, since the GrapheneOS user is obviously posting from its own Mastodon instance, maybe they should configure the darn thing to allow them to write larger posts. You can do that!
QuiEgo 1mo ago
I have to wonder how good a shepard Google will be long term for other things people build on. Looking at you, Bazel.

829 points by Animux 2mo ago

They are shutting it down. Same agenda as with the ban on side-loading.

I really hope the courts just utterly destroy Google one day. Society would be better off, regardless of the collateral.

dgellow 2mo ago

Quoting the first tweet: > Google replaced pushing Git tags for certain source code with obtaining source code via Google Drive after making a request through Google Forms. It's completely ridiculous and they've gradually become very slow at handling requests. They're in clear violation of the GPLv2 now.

rlpb 2mo ago
Didn't Google work very hard to avoid any GPL in Android, apart from the kernel? What is in there that is GPL?
- cute_boi 2mo ago
  I assume Linux. I am very thankful linux is gpl. Because of GPL these tech giants are forced to release source code.
  - ares623 1mo ago
    But Linux allowed Tivoization though.
    - hedora 1mo ago
      There are worse things than Tivoization. Google helped lobby the FSF to adopt GPLv3, which bans tivoization, but allows software as a service. This is why you cannot have bash on MacOS, but Google can still use it to build surveillance capitalism, and arbitrarily enshittify your word processor.
      - deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
gowld 2mo ago
How slow is "very slow" ? What is "certain source code"? Why is the OP being so coy about describing the problem? Here is the form: https://source.android.com/opensourcerequest https://source.android.com/opensourcerequest This is interesting: > We might charge you a fee to cover the cost of processing. Your request must be sent according to whichever of the following rules applies: > Within three years of the date you received the product from Google that included the component or binary files that are the subject of your request. That "three years" is the minimum named in the GPLv2: https://opensource.org/license/gpl-2.0 https://opensource.org/license/gpl-2.0
- HarlequinHair 2mo ago
  > How slow is "very slow?" The answer can be found two replies after: > Initially, Google would usually provide access to the tarballs within a couple hours. Lately, they're often taking weeks to get back to us. They're the ones who chose to use this archaic system instead of pushing Git tags and it's their responsibility to handle requests promptly. > What is "certain source code"? The OP seems to be GrapheneOS, which heavy patches AOSP. I guess the context is Android source code and its security patches. > Why is the OP being so coy about describing the problem? Not sure what you mean, I think they are explicit enough. I guess it's clear enough for developers how an upstream update should go. If people depend on big projects like AOSP, devs should be prompt in delivering source code, especially when it is mandatory by license. Can you give us more details on how/why you think the OP is being coy?
  - grapheneos 1mo ago
    It isn't about AOSP but rather the Pixel OS. Android 16 dropped support for Pixels from AOSP but we're still entitled to receiving the subset of the code derived from GPL/LGPL projects. We need the Pixel kernel driver sources for each stable and beta release. We're entitled to getting those in a reasonable amount of time. Weeks of delays is not reasonable for one of the largest tech companies in the world. They could simply share a folder with us and put all of the releases in that folder so we don't need to request each release. They're going out of the way to make it difficult by requiring us to separately request it for every single release we want. Initially, it was consistently provided in under a business day. Recently, they've regularly been taking weeks or more to provide it. It's likely going to take longer now that more people are aware of it since they're going to receive more requests for it. They could simply push it to a repository on GitHub instead of assigning employees to do this manually. If for some reason they don't want to do that, they could at least automate it. For example, they could give us access to a folder with all the releases. Needing to request every single release tag is ridiculous.
petcat 2mo ago
> They're in clear violation of the GPLv2 now. I don't think they are? They could just as easily require requests for the source code to be made through the regular mail instead of a Google form. It's still (maliciously) compliant with the license.
- logological 1mo ago
  > I don't think they are? If filling out the source code request form via Google Forms and/or accessing the download link via Google Drive requires the requester to run non-free (or at least non-GPLv2) JavaScript, then maybe it is in violation of section 6 of the GPLv2 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein") since the requester is then required to accept an entirely different set of licensing terms and conditions.
  - nomel 1mo ago
    IANAL, but I don't think you're interpreting that correctly. I believe section 3.b and 3.c are the rights this is referring to, where you can request the source, and even be changed for the physical act. Suggesting this extends to the license of the implementation of their contact system doesn't make sense. No method of contact, except physical, is going to meet your requirements, including sending postage, where the software used to sort your mail is not GPL.
    - r3trohack3r 1mo ago
      I think it’s nuanced I can see an argument that Google is requiring you to enter into a separate agreement with them (the terms they require you to agree to when using Google Forms) to request access to the GPL licensed source. You do not enter into an agreement with the vendor of the software the postal service uses to sort your mail.
      - Dylan16807 1mo ago
        If they do force you into google forms and you can't send a letter then that's a potential issue. Making you run javascript is a weaker argument...

spydum 2mo ago

isn't this just malicious compliance? not clear how this would violate GPLv2?

osmsucks 2mo ago
Yeah, I agree. While this is a terrible move IMHO, from my superficial reading of the GPLv2 it doesn't really constitute a violation: the license imposes that the source be distributed to anyone who asks, potentially even charge a fee to cover its distribution costs, but it doesn't require that development happen in the open.
- shevy-java 1mo ago
  I mean, the only way to test this is to require of Google here to release the source code. And then look at how a court will evaluate it. For instance, what if Google never sends the source code? What if they claim that no request made it in? Though I guess this can be ensured, e. g. via letter that is registered being sent and then looking at Google's response to it. So right now I think we all probably do not know. Google MIGHT refuse to release the source code, but it could release it - we don't know yet. Someone has to test that.
  - osmsucks 1mo ago
    > For instance, what if Google never sends the source code? What if they claim that no request made it in? That would be a violation of the license terms. All Google has done so far is, apparently, to make it hella annoying to access the source code (but not impossible).
- grapheneos 1mo ago
  GPL not defining a time limit to comply also doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable limit on compliance time. Google is more than capable of quickly complying. It comes down to whether a judge would think what they're doing is reasonable and we don't think they would. The software also isn't in the preferred form for modification. The build system which runs Git commands and doesn't work as intended without it. You have to make a Git repository for it to work and there's meant to be a separate one for each separate component. It spews out errors.

jmole 2mo ago

“In violation of GPL” is a stretch. Can’t imagine Google is making the process of obtaining source code easier on themselves though. Android has always been more source-open than “open source”. The vast majority of community contributions that make it into the codebase are security fixes and small bug fixes. Everything else is essentially all the work of Google and (to some extent) Samsung.

ajross 2mo ago
> “In violation of GPL” is a stretch. The originally envisioned distribution method, in fact, was "Send FSF a blank 9-track tape and they'll fill it and mail it back". Nor, obviously, does anything prevent someone who downloads this from Drive from mirroring it on GitHub or wherever. This is arguably bad stewardship of a historically open source project. It's certainly not a license violation.
- Brian_K_White 2mo ago
  It's paying a bill in pennies.
  - ajross 2mo ago
    It's not even that. Downstream projects host their own mirrors already, this is an annoying hoop to jump through for the maintainers (basically suck down a bunch of tarballs for every release, analogous to grabbing stuff from FTP sites back in the day), but not exactly a terrible hardship compared to the really very significant work of maintaining a large project.
    - simoncion 2mo ago
      There might be some merit to a claim that Google Drive isn't a medium customarily used for software distribution these days, but, yeah, it's definitely not paying a thousand+ cent bill in pennies, and I'm skeptical that it's a violation of the letter of the GPL. It is definitely a dick move by Google.

izacus 2mo ago

Source code of which components is that? It's not very clear from the mastodon thread.

hskimse 1mo ago
Maybe AOSP source code
- grapheneos 1mo ago
  It's not AOSP but rather Pixels. Pixels are no longer support by AOSP. They went out of the way to no longer push any of the Pixel specific repositories or releases to AOSP. The impact is mainly that Pixels are now harder to support than a lot of other devices rather than easier. They'll sell far fewer Pixels over time because of these decisions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369087
  - hskimse 1mo ago
    I didn't know Pixel maintained its own kernel patches. And if there is a delay in providing that code to Pixel buyers, from my perspective, that looks like a violation of the GPL.
grapheneos 1mo ago
Pixel kernel drivers. We mirror the source code on GitLab. We put the upstream 17 code in the 17-base branch and our code on top of it in the 17 branch: https://gitlab.com/grapheneos/kernel_pixel/-/tree/17-base https://gitlab.com/grapheneos/kernel_pixel/-/tree/17-base https://gitlab.com/grapheneos/kernel_pixel_muzel/-/tree/17-base https://gitlab.com/grapheneos/kernel_pixel_muzel/-/tree/17-b... We also have mirrors of the QPR1 Beta and QPR2 Beta code there too.

cute_boi 2mo ago

I think leadership in Google is getting worst day by day. The main reason to use Android is mostly sideloading and open source and they are trying to sabotage both.

bitpush 2mo ago
What is the alternative?
- Cider9986 1mo ago
  GrapheneOS
- Zigurd 1mo ago
  HarmonyOS?
  - rurban 1mo ago
    Hopefully. I don't trust them neither, but they do have no powers over me.
  - bitpush 1mo ago
    Isn't HarmonyOS Chinese? The alternative you're proposing is using Chinese OS?
    - Zigurd 1mo ago
      Yes but it's only a viable alternative if they do better at supporting the open source community.

demibabs 2mo ago

Can someone explain what this means? Am not familiar with the terminology

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
pydry 2mo ago
Google apparently wants everybody to know how much they hate abiding by the terms of open source licenses.
paxys 2mo ago
Google uses libraries licensed under GPLv2 in Android (I’m not sure which specific part of Android the author is talking about), and so is required to make the full source code available for anyone to view. They previously used to publish release tag tarballs, but now require you to fill out a Google form and then (weeks later) will share the source with you on Google Drive.
- thayne 1mo ago
  Android is built on the linux kernel which uses GPLv2
Zigurd 1mo ago
It means Google is making it harder than it needs to be to obtain source code. It's a dick move, and the only plausible interpretations are that it will get harder still, and it's intended to slow down projects like GrapheneOS. Even if it can be lawyered to be in the letter of the open source licenses that apply, it's not in the spirit of those licenses.

hatthew 2mo ago

If you're like me and struggled to parse the title, my understanding is, "To obtain certain source code from Google, you could previously reference git tags, but now you have to fill out a form and wait for a human to give you a google drive link."

aleph_minus_one 1mo ago
> "To obtain certain source code from Google, you could previously reference git tags, but now you have to fill out a form and wait for a human to give you a google drive link." Couldn't simply someone mirror these Google Drive folders?
- mjg59 1mo ago
  Yes, but that person still needs to file a request and wait several days
  - aleph_minus_one 1mo ago
    But after one person does this, the source code access is a solved problem.
    - mjg59 1mo ago
      But nobody has done this, which is why it's a problem for Graphene
      - beanjuiceII 1mo ago
        Maybe should someone should do it then?
        mjg59 1mo ago
        They are, which is how they know how long it's taking.
        1mo ago

shevy-java 1mo ago

Google needs to lose in court here. This company is getting more and more evil by the day.

matheusmoreira 2mo ago

Every year a new low.

g-b-r 1mo ago

Let's just forget about the tags, the point is that they're not publishing what Graphene OS needs on any git repository that they can access. Even before that it had been jokes of repositories, but at least you didn't have to ask for someone every time and wait for them to respond to the request. (that's my understanding)

ProAm 1mo ago
i.e. its no longer open source, now access is granted by permission.
- pas 1mo ago
  what does the license say? provide source when asked or publish source? OSI is not clear on this either. ("Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, [...]")
  - ProAm 1mo ago
    Spirit of the law vs Letter of the law argument. Which ever side of the coin you stand on.
  - nextaccountic 1mo ago
    Google became one of those OEMs that drag their feet and make it a hassle to publish the source code. This happens because they are not interested in open source Android anymore
  - wakawaka28 1mo ago
    I hate to be that guy but publishing source online for free theoretically involves unbounded distribution costs that can't be recovered. That isn't the issue here but it should be considered before changing a license.
    - ProAm 1mo ago

dataflow 1mo ago

Can't help but wonder if making it costly for themselves the entire point. So that they can later turn around and bill that distribution fee to the recipient.

torgeros 1mo ago

That's like this fun fact where Microsoft needs to send you source code via post when you mail them a 5$ check. lol

gumby 1mo ago

GPL says that you can give that link to anyone you want. If someone on HN has received one of these links, feel free to post it here.

m463 1mo ago
I think - if the code is in fact GPL - you can give the code to anyone you want. But I would think the link is access to google's servers, which might be different.
jeroenhd 1mo ago
Not the links per se (those are subject to terms of service), but the contents downloaded for those links are free to share. Anyone can throw them up in their own git repository or upload them to Github.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 1mo ago
  When did torrenting die?

evolve2k 1mo ago

Shameful acts.

shevy-java 1mo ago

I don't think the real focus is on the tags, but on the delay here via a form as well as human interaction. Worded differently, the simplest way to provide the source code is IMO via a URL that you can just wget. At the least this is done by so many projects out there. Google refusing to do so means Google wants to violate the GPLv2, since their alternatives are inferior. https://distrowatch.com/ https://distrowatch.com/ has many convenient links to URLs on the left side; I often use that to download the latest and greatest and compile it away, e. g. https://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.20.27/bind-9.20.27.tar.xz https://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.20.27/bind-9.20.27.tar.xz as a current example, taken from the left panel.

bitpush 1mo ago
> Google refusing to do so means Google wants to violate the GPLv2 Not an expert in GPL, but does it say that the source code needs to be provided by a url?
- devy 1mo ago
  GPL doesn't require them to publish the source in git. FWIW, Google can be compliant and publish the source in Physical Medium too if they opt too. Also, the OP did mentioned that Google also squashed the git commit to a single commit for whatever reason.
  - mikestorrent 1mo ago
    Can't wait for pallets of paper to get shipped out to comply maliciously
    - mjg59 1mo ago
      The license requires that it be distributed on a medium customarily used for software interchange, and I don't think you'd stand a good chance of arguing that paper satisfies that.
      - 1mo ago

sunshine-o 1mo ago

The era of big tech cooperation around free software is obviously over. Those kind of moves are petty but there are worst tricks they can pull unfortunately. It seems Grapheneos is the rare actor willing to put up a fight nowadays, and their "partnership" with Motorola seems to be a first step. They need to ensure a hardware platform. My guess is at some point they will have to fork AOSP, just because Google will take it in directions that go against Grapheneos principles.

palata 1mo ago
> My guess is at some point they will have to fork AOSP I am still sad that Huawei didn't go this way, I thought they would with HarmonyOS. I wonder if it could happen at some point that an alternative Android becomes so big that OEMs start supporting it. It feels like it may be interesting for the big Android manufacturers to support something like GrapheneOS? I wonder: for those Motorola phones that will come with GrapheneOS, won't that make it cheaper for Motorola because they won't have to pay the Google licence (because those GrapheneOS-Motorola phone won't be Google-certified)?
- sunshine-o 1mo ago
  > I wonder if it could happen at some point that an alternative Android becomes so big that OEMs start supporting it. I think this is the huge battle GrapheneOS won with Motorola. There are probably a few manufacturers of phones unhappy or nervous regarding Google. The next battle is really on the app front. Once a country says our government and bank apps need to run on the fork of AOSP then you will start to have a real alternative to the Google/Apple (and now Huawei) duopoly. My guess is there are a lot of candidate countries for breaking out of the American/Chinese grab on every smartphones. So in a way the future could look bright as long as we support GrapheneOS and Motorola.
- Eueudhsbsj32 1mo ago
  > I wonder: for those Motorola phones that will come with GrapheneOS, won't that make it cheaper for Motorola because they won't have to pay the Google licence (because those GrapheneOS-Motorola phone won't be Google-certified)? There's been no confirmation that any phones will come pre-installed with GrapheneOS from Motorola, just that some phones will be compatible. My guess is Google is already applying pressure on Motorola to make sure every phone still ships with standard Android from the factory.

PunchyHamster 1mo ago

I have feeling that is related to their upcoming changes that make sideloading harder

TheMiddleMan 1mo ago

Relevant: https://keepandroidopen.org/ https://keepandroidopen.org/ > Starting in 2027*, a silent update, nonconsensually pushed by Google, will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID.

paxys 1mo ago
Doesn’t Apple do the same?
- sunaookami 1mo ago
  The difference is that Apple always did it with iOS and Google did not. Many chose Android because of that.
- EastSmith 1mo ago
  Does it matter that Apple does the same?
- croes 1mo ago
  Did Apple claim iOS is open source?
  - paxys 1mo ago
    AOSP is open source. The Android running on most manufacturer-branded phones isn’t.
  - mikestorrent 1mo ago
    Well, https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu is, but it's not enough to make you an iPhone.
  - izacus 1mo ago
    So you're saying Google should stop open sourcing Android? That should like a bad incentive to make to defend Apple.

el1s7 1mo ago

It's a bit unclear what this is about exactly. What releases are we talking about? How git tags come into play here?

zb3 1mo ago
Pixel kernel drivers which are GPLv2, you need them to build the kernel modules from source. Git tags in this case refer to beta versions, but it being "beta" doesn't mean they can delay the release.

cdrnsf 1mo ago

Give them a few years and they'll only provide it by printing out a copy and mailing it to you.

RachelF 1mo ago
Don't give them ideas!
- eredengrin 1mo ago
  Seriously, if we keep this up they'll be sending us pallets of punch cards before you know it.

a-dub 1mo ago

hanlon's razor comes to mind. which trees are these? weird device trees that have complicated third party licensing nonsense attached? i remember jumping through crazy hoops to interact with a google open source project years ago. i wouldn't be surprised if it's just megacorp bureaucracy.

dminik 1mo ago

I really don't understand the thought process here. Judging by public statements, Google is one of the 3 big western AI companies. Surely they should be rolling in cash and working hard towards AGI. And yet, for whatever reason, they can't help themselves from further restricting user freedoms on Android. Why? I don't want to be conspiratorial, but surely it's not money, right? It has to be control. Someone high up at Google just seems to resent people having control over their own devices.

shalom1112 1mo ago
[dead]
KetoManx64 1mo ago
Both. Google has plenty of government contracts, they are undoubtedly pushing for more surveillance, and also on the inverse side, we are now in an age where users can create their own apps to do whatever they want within a few hours, sothis risks their Google Play Store profits
- gruez 1mo ago
  >Both. Google has plenty of government contracts, they are undoubtedly pushing for more surveillance, I don't get it, are the government contracts somehow contingent on them oppressing users and stifling open source? >we are now in an age where users can create their own apps to do whatever they want within a few hours, sothis risks their Google Play Store profits If that's the reason, they're doing a pretty poor job, since it's trivially bypassable by running "adb install".
  - ivell 1mo ago
    It probably is slow-boiling. Many things have been slow-boiled for so long that majority of us were caught sleeping at the wheels. The day probably would come where Google does open sourcing just for namesake that too for insignificant piece of software. And other companies will follow suite. There would be time where everything thing will locked up and monitored. I am so thankful that the PC revolution happened way before app stores and there was a period of open source culture and open formats etc.

IshKebab 1mo ago

This is a direct consequence of their loss to Epic. They saw Apple win because they didn't have any competition to stifle, and they want the same. Pretty shit.

QuantumNoodle 1mo ago

Yo Louis Rossmann, do your thing!

grapheneos 1mo ago

They stopped pushing tags for any of the Pixel kernel or userspace driver repositories to AOSP. They also stopped pushing AOSP releases specific to Pixels which is why AOSP now only gets yearly releases, QPR2 releases and security backports to both of those. Other OEMs use the yearly and theoretically also the QPR2 releases. Both the yearly and QPR2 releases get monthly security backports. Since they dropped Pixel support from AOSP, they don't push the releases not shipped by other OEMs anymore. These changes directly led to our Motorola partnership. One of their security people reached out to us after seeing our posts about this with the launch of Android 16. We haven't talked about it much since then since we adapted to it during the several weeks it delayed our Android 16 port. We then continued adapting to it and have fully worked around it. It was an ongoing problem but not a new one and we had accepted we had to deal with it as the new normal. They were previously responding to our kernel source requests within a day. It was often done without hours. Despite the archaic system, this part wasn't that bad. Recently, they've been taking weeks or longer to get back to us for the requests which is ridiculous. It's the direct result of purposely adding a lot of friction with manual handling of the requests even if the delays weren't directly planned by management. Weeks or months of delay is not reasonable for one of the largest tech companies in the world. GPL doesn't set a standard time limit for providing the sources, but that doesn't mean they can delay it indefinitely. They need to do it in a reasonable amount of time. What's reasonable for one of the largest tech companies in the world in 2026 with current technology is not the same as what was reasonable 30 years ago. Google chose to come up with a archaic way of distributing the sources involving someone manually going through a list and sharing Google Drive access. It's a deliberate way of making it painful. If they can't keep up with it and it gets delayed for weeks or months then they're not complying with the GPL by not providing it in a reasonable amount of time. Law is not code and a time limit not being explicitly written down doesn't mean there isn't a limit to what's reasonable for compliance. They'll sell far fewer Pixels because of these overall changes. It pushes GrapheneOS and other projects towards other devices instead. For us, Pixels are being used due to security rather than ease of supporting them. It's now a lot harder to deal with Pixels than it would be for many other devices but they're currently still the most secure option. We're working on changing that and have a lot less reason to contribute to improving Pixels. We helped them fix serious security weaknesses for Pixels including vulnerabilities being exploited in the wild by forensic data extraction companies. Pixel security with the stock OS would be worse without GrapheneOS.

zephen 1mo ago

Many commenters agree this is not a nice move by google. But is there any reason that google might have that they feel is legitimate? For example, delaying releasing source until they've had a chance to update all the pixels with security patches might be good from their perspective, to reduce zero-day exploits for people they are supporting.

hedora 1mo ago
This just breaks legitimate downstream distros that target Pixel devices. Ransomware gangs, etc still get red carpet service.
- zephen 1mo ago
  So all the non-pixel-specific stuff is in a publicly accessible repo? So the pixel team just decided that they wanted to keep their kimono mostly closed?
  - hedora 1mo ago
    Yes, but that’s the only reference android device, so the whole ecosystem is getting pretty close to completely locked down. Google is going to require devs to register, pay and get permission to publish Android software sometime next year. Locking pixel owners out of third party operating systems means they get to force pixel owners to hand control over their devices and applications to Google. The motorola / GrapheneOS partnership gives me some hope though. Maybe when the pendulum swings back in 2028, the US will pass consumer protection laws, and we’ll have the right to import devices that allow open ROMs, and demand they be supported by cell networks. (I doubt the moderate democrats would support this, but I’d guess the DSA candidates could be convinced to.)

water-data-dude 1mo ago

"Free" as in "free to play by our rules or suffer"

exabrial 1mo ago

Google's intent is to make web development and mobile development so complex that you have to rely on their browser or other means to get anything done.

xiaoyu2006 1mo ago

Classical not being evil stuff by Google.

m463 1mo ago
The third reich loved administrative processes too.
genxy 1mo ago
Removed don't be evil. "Don't be a dick" was never on the list. Yeah, this is a total dick move.

zx8080 1mo ago

Is it about Android code? Could this be related to the upcoming change (close) of the apk side-loading?

palata 1mo ago
I don't think it is directly related, other than Google being Google and deserving big big fines for being evil.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

raphinou 1mo ago

But why? What can be the internal justification? What do they think they win by doing this?

D4Ha 1mo ago
Difficult to say at the moment, but there might be some speculation as to why. One might be that they dont security patches reverse engineered and vulnerabilities to come out faster (some critical and high severity fixes in GPU drivers/bootloaders were often delayed), and this decision was done long before LLMs were considered powerful/useful for vulnerability research. Second reason might be simply "Control of the android ecosystem", Google may just want to build a wall around android and make it frustrating for other vendors to compete. Third, again, this is only speculation, is the current push for electronic ID in the EU and other countries, as well as DRM/copyright protections for media and locally ran LLMs (we've heard of how google pushed small LLMs with chrome updates), if they can do the same on some high end android devices, Google would be more invested into further locking down Android devices.
- jezek2 1mo ago
  It can be also a temporary obstacle until they get rid of Linux kernel and replace it with kernel from Fuchsia or something.

d_finch 1mo ago

Switching from Git tags to Google Drive downloads technically satisfies GPL but makes it much harder for downstream projects to track changes. The inconvenience is the point.

Havoc 1mo ago

Google doing anti competitive bullshit? Never

Brian_K_White 1mo ago

RE satisfying GPL, the google drive thing is annoying, and I called it paying a bill in pennies in another comment, But RedHat is 100x worse. They might actually be violating the gpl because of the attempt to set terms on redistribution and the retaliation (kill your account and block future access) if you do.

teekert 1mo ago

We need something other than Android, and we need the government to make sure we can run Android apps (like government ID and banking apps) without being spied on. They've been doing whatever the f they like for long enough if you ask me.

qwertox 1mo ago
No government would like you to use anything else but iOS or a major vendor's Android distribution. Imagine we'd had the freedom... unacceptable.
tonyhart7 1mo ago
Huawei have harmony OS that can run android app right ??? EU can have their own counter part but no one footing the bill
fsflover 1mo ago
> We need something other than Android postmarketOS, Mobian, PureOS, and many more already exist. Support them, if you think it's important.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

hnc3yfnu6f 1mo ago

Yep. Every single time.

doe88 1mo ago

What's the point of Android if not of being open?!! I don't see any value for them to be closed or combative. It's sad to see Google, once the greatest company on earth, lose absolutely everything of what they made them great in just a matter of a couple of years.

thyristan 1mo ago
The purpose of Android for Google is to push users into paid services, Google search, collect some play store fees and some data. None of that actually requires Android to be really open. Just saying something about "open" works as advertisement though...
- g-b-r 1mo ago
  I think data is the first purpose by far, and I wouldn't describe it as "some"

nikunj1809 1mo ago

Oh ! What would be the impact?

hamilyon2 1mo ago

For Pixel drivers, is there something that prevents Google from relicensing them to proprietary and not share any source at all?

rwmj 1mo ago
At least in theory, the drivers being linked to the kernel and using the GPL symbols from the kernel means the drivers could be covered by the GPL whatever Google's intended license was. I'm sure they have $$$$ lawyers who have looked into this.

hn_submit 1mo ago

Yep, GrapheneOS is becoming too popular and Google is reacting in a manner that's not conducive with its "don't be evil" adage.

kazinator 1mo ago

Speaking of inconvenience, since the GrapheneOS user is obviously posting from its own Mastodon instance, maybe they should configure the darn thing to allow them to write larger posts. You can do that!

QuiEgo 1mo ago

I have to wonder how good a shepard Google will be long term for other things people build on. Looking at you, Bazel.