3 ms·
Yes, but that person still needs to file a request and wait several days
by mjg59 1mo ago
Yes, but that person still needs to file a request and wait several days
- aleph_minus_one 1mo agoBut after one person does this, the source code access is a solved problem.
- mjg59 1mo agoBut nobody has done this, which is why it's a problem for Graphene
- beanjuiceII 1mo agoMaybe should someone should do it then?
- mjg59 1mo agoThey are, which is how they know how long it's taking.
- gruez 1mo agoSubmitting the form isn't too hard, so there's not much to be gained by getting a non-affiliated volunteer to do it. Also if they're not the ones requesting it, it becomes hard to ascertain the authenticity of the links (eg. it doesn't contain a backdoored kernel).
- urbnspacecowboy 1mo agoNo it's not, because "one person" has to keep sitting up and begging for access, every time there's a new release, over and over and over and over and over.
- grapheneos 1mo agoIt was initially taking under a business day for them to respond, but our recent requests have often taken weeks for them to get back to us. We want the code for all the Beta releases and are entitled to it. This is the relevant code for Android 17: 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... There are other branches there with it for Android 17 QPR1 Beta and Android 17 QPR2 Beta. Google could save everyone including themselves a lot of hassle by simply publishing it to GitHub. If they don't want to push it to AOSP for weird organizational reasons as part of saying AOSP doesn't support Pixels, fine. Taking weeks or more to get back to us isn't reasonable for one the largest tech companies in the world. It's also questionable whether what they're providing is truly the preferred form for modification considering the build system is quite unhappy about the lack of Git repositories. They had to provide a repo manifest metadata file to work around part of it.
- mjg59 1mo agoI wholeheartedly agree. Making it more difficult to obtain GPLed source code than it was before is fundamentally a dick move.
- grapheneos 1mo agoIt also isn't only them pushing the boundaries of the GPL. Pixel 9a and earlier were sold as the official Android Open Source Project (AOSP) reference devices. They made a commitment to providing 7 years of updates for the Pixel 8 and later. Android 16 declared Pixels were no longer AOSP reference devices and stopped providing any support for them. From our perspective, Google hasn't fulfilled their update commitment for the Pixel 6 through Pixel 9a. It's fair to say the Pixel 10 and later weren't sold as AOSP reference devices and didn't have any commitment to providing sources as part of the updates, but that isn't the case for the earlier devices.