4 ms·

> Compare this with Linux, which is much more popular in its own right and even more so if you include Android, which itself is much freer than iOS in no small

by cwyers 12y ago

> Compare this with Linux, which is much more popular in its own right and even more so if you include Android, which itself is much freer than iOS in no small part because the kernel is GPL'd. Is it? The Android userland isn't GPL'd at all -- I think the last GPL bit left when they switched from BlueZ to BlueDroid. I don't see any evidence as to why the GPL code in the kernel compels Google to release the Android userland in the Apache license, rather than keeping it closed-source.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
I don't imagine it does. The userland is a whole different thing. But that doesn't mean that I (or Samsung or Amazon or Mozilla) can't make changes to the kernel in ways that aren't possible with iOS, or benefit from Google's improvements to e.g. Linux power management regardless of whether or not my device runs the Android userland.
- cwyers 12y ago
  I'm not sure this is due to the GPL either. Google distributes its patches to MySQL, for instance, despite them running MySQL on their own servers rather than distributing it in such a way that the GPL would force them to.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    It seems like that is due to the GPL. If they could distribute a version of MySQL with sufficiently useful improvements under their own license then they could charge money for it and go into competition with Oracle. Since they can't do that they no longer derive that possible benefit from denying the improvements to others, so they have a greater incentive to contribute them even if not required to.
  - davidgerard 12y ago
    They didn't for a while, then maintaining their fork got to be enough of a pain in the backside that they realised that keeping with upstream was probably a good idea.
    - cwyers 12y ago
      Pretty much this. GPL or no GPL, there's a maintenance burden when you maintain patches on software when upstream is releasing new code you want that doesn't contain your patches.

by cwyers 12y ago

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

I don't imagine it does. The userland is a whole different thing. But that doesn't mean that I (or Samsung or Amazon or Mozilla) can't make changes to the kernel in ways that aren't possible with iOS, or benefit from Google's improvements to e.g. Linux power management regardless of whether or not my device runs the Android userland.

cwyers 12y ago
I'm not sure this is due to the GPL either. Google distributes its patches to MySQL, for instance, despite them running MySQL on their own servers rather than distributing it in such a way that the GPL would force them to.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  It seems like that is due to the GPL. If they could distribute a version of MySQL with sufficiently useful improvements under their own license then they could charge money for it and go into competition with Oracle. Since they can't do that they no longer derive that possible benefit from denying the improvements to others, so they have a greater incentive to contribute them even if not required to.
- davidgerard 12y ago
  They didn't for a while, then maintaining their fork got to be enough of a pain in the backside that they realised that keeping with upstream was probably a good idea.
  - cwyers 12y ago
    Pretty much this. GPL or no GPL, there's a maintenance burden when you maintain patches on software when upstream is releasing new code you want that doesn't contain your patches.