5 ms·

“They open source a browser and an operating system to sell other stuff.” No, those were already open source before Google got involved, so Google didn’t reall

“They open source a browser and an operating system to sell other stuff.” No, those were already open source before Google got involved, so Google didn’t really have a choice.

icebraining 13y ago
Uh, no. None of them existed before Google. What did exist were two pieces of infrastructure (Webkit and the Linux kernel), and Google could've used both without open-sourcing the rest of the application, since the licenses allow it: - Webkit is LGPL/BSD, so it can be linked to proprietary code without forcing its redistribution. - The Linux kernel is GPL, but the license has never applied to userspace code, and everything "above" is either written by Google or non-copyleft open source code. I think it's only reasonably for Google to contribute some after getting so much from open source projects, but that doesn't mean they didn't have the legal choice to do otherwise.
- popee 13y ago
  Google's wet dream is Linux kernel under BSD license.
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    Really? Why not use a BSD kernel then? And don't say because Linux is so much more advanced: for what Google would use it for, FreeBSD would do just fine.
  - metaphorm 13y ago
    thats a silly thing to say. BSD licensed Unix already exists. if they wanted to build a proprietary OS on top of it (as Apple did) they would have. the fact that they already decided not to is the entire point here. Google chose GPL Licensed Linux over BSD Licensed Unix. From a technical perspective there's not a whole lot of difference. The license is the more important difference and we already know which they chose.
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      > as Apple did Apple didn’t build a proprietary OS on top of BSD licensed UNIX. They used the core of NEXTSTEP, which in turn used parts of several different BSD distros (though not its kernel or driver system).
- QEDturtles 13y ago
  Wait... so Android Inc didn't exist for the 2 years between its founding in 2003 and Google's acquisition in 2005?
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Oh, I was actually thinking of ChromeOS. But the point still stands, since they owned the copyright, and therefore they did have a choice to keep the userspace closed.
raldi 13y ago
So were BSD and KHTML, and yet when Apple built OS X and iOS and Safari on top of them, they did it closed-source.

“They open source a browser and an operating system to sell other stuff.” No, those were already open source before Google got involved, so Google didn’t really have a choice.

icebraining 13y ago

Uh, no. None of them existed before Google. What did exist were two pieces of infrastructure (Webkit and the Linux kernel), and Google could've used both without open-sourcing the rest of the application, since the licenses allow it: - Webkit is LGPL/BSD, so it can be linked to proprietary code without forcing its redistribution. - The Linux kernel is GPL, but the license has never applied to userspace code, and everything "above" is either written by Google or non-copyleft open source code. I think it's only reasonably for Google to contribute some after getting so much from open source projects, but that doesn't mean they didn't have the legal choice to do otherwise.

popee 13y ago
Google's wet dream is Linux kernel under BSD license.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  Really? Why not use a BSD kernel then? And don't say because Linux is so much more advanced: for what Google would use it for, FreeBSD would do just fine.
- metaphorm 13y ago
  thats a silly thing to say. BSD licensed Unix already exists. if they wanted to build a proprietary OS on top of it (as Apple did) they would have. the fact that they already decided not to is the entire point here. Google chose GPL Licensed Linux over BSD Licensed Unix. From a technical perspective there's not a whole lot of difference. The license is the more important difference and we already know which they chose.
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    > as Apple did Apple didn’t build a proprietary OS on top of BSD licensed UNIX. They used the core of NEXTSTEP, which in turn used parts of several different BSD distros (though not its kernel or driver system).
QEDturtles 13y ago
Wait... so Android Inc didn't exist for the 2 years between its founding in 2003 and Google's acquisition in 2005?
- icebraining 13y ago
  Oh, I was actually thinking of ChromeOS. But the point still stands, since they owned the copyright, and therefore they did have a choice to keep the userspace closed.

raldi 13y ago

So were BSD and KHTML, and yet when Apple built OS X and iOS and Safari on top of them, they did it closed-source.