The answer is
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| skelband Aug 17, 2011 2:09 AM EDT |
The answer is no, basically. |
| dinotrac Aug 17, 2011 6:06 AM EDT |
It does raise an interesting question -- with a personal disclaimer that I know nothing about the structure of Android code. The GPL's famous viral aspects require that all derived works incorporating GPL'd code be GPL'd. So -- the apache licensed parts -- are they sufficiently separate from the GPL'd parts to avoid that requirement? |
| number6x Aug 17, 2011 8:06 AM EDT |
I cannot vouch for every line of code, but yes they are most likely sufficiently separate. shipping things together, even compiling them together is not deriving. Dino, think about code shipped for many common products and I'm sure you will see that this argument makes very little sense. Having multiple 'units' of code mixed together in any product, closed or open source, is not uncommon. Those units can also have different licensing conditions. Even a product like Microsoft Windows contains code from multiple sources, each with its own licensing terms that is distributed together. If the authors take licensed code and alter it they have a derivative work. That derivative may have to remain the same license (like GPL), or may offer an opportunity to re-license (like BSD). In most cases the code under separate licenses will not be intermixed, so there is no issue. As long as each license is not infringed they are good to go. It is FUD. Plain and simple. PS - I know that you know this and are just asking to stimulate our little gray cells. |
| JaseP Aug 17, 2011 12:33 PM EDT |
It's FUD... All this talk of non-compliance for example,... The source for the GPL'd parts are available. The websites for getting them might not be obvious, but are available... |
| dinotrac Aug 17, 2011 12:37 PM EDT |
number6x - I understand that, but the question is a reasonable one. The kinds of assembly that are acceptable under the GPL vs those that are not are not necessarily agreed upon by all parties. Remember the KDE debacle of 10 years ago? QT ultimately resolved that by changing the license, but plenty of people disagreed mightily on that one. It still creates a distribution issue for things like NVIDIA drivers and the like. |
| jdixon Aug 17, 2011 12:44 PM EDT |
> The source for the GPL'd parts are available. The websites for getting them might not be obvious, but are available... As long as those sources are listed in the documentation you get with the phone, or in the additional information available on a web site pointed to by same, there shouldn't be a problem. If not, there could be. IANAL, of course. |
| gus3 Aug 17, 2011 1:21 PM EDT |
Doesn't the GPL require *you* to provide the sources, or a link to them displayed in an obvious manner? IOW, don't send the end user on a wild goose chase? |
| skelband Aug 17, 2011 1:22 PM EDT |
The basic premise of the GPL is quite straightforward. The devil is in the details though. In the main, the GPL stipulates that code that is binary linked to GPL licensed code, effectively becomes GPL licensed. That's the viral nature often described. The LGPL was introduced because for a lot of use cases (like proprietary applications linking to GNU libraries) it was too onerous for the majority of people to use and a great number of fairly acceptable and open licences fell short of the GPL's stipulations. By and large, as long as you don't binary link to GPL code then your code is not tainted by it. You need only make the source of GPL code available, not any accompanying products that are not tainted by the GPL license. In this sense, Android is in the clear. |
| JaseP Aug 17, 2011 3:54 PM EDT |
Quoting: Doesn't the GPL require *you* to provide the sources, or a link to them displayed in an obvious manner? IOW, don't send the end user on a wild goose chase? You?!?! Not precisely. You must provide... but it doesn't necessarily have to come from your web address. Obvious?!?! No such requirement. Goose chase?!?! Well, at a certain point I'm sure it can be construed as non-compliance. You should Google the GPL and take a look,... It's not written in legalese for the most part. |
| BernardSwiss Aug 17, 2011 4:38 PM EDT |
As I understand it: If you provide the GPL binaries, you must provide the GPL'd code; in other words, you can't just say that it's "easily" available somewhere/anywhere/everywhere or upstream directly from the original developer(s). YOU distributed THAT particular GPL software to the recipients, so YOU must make THAT particular GPL code available to those same recipients. |
| JaseP Aug 17, 2011 5:02 PM EDT |
You understand that the Android kernels are maintained as git snapshots, and that portion is rarely changed by the vendors, right??? http://source.android.com/source/initializing.html http://android.git.kernel.org/ PS: For technical compliance, I suppose that all a vendor woud have to do is refer to this post of mine,... It's all there, right through Android 3.1... |
| BernardSwiss Aug 17, 2011 5:58 PM EDT |
I didn't, actually. But as I understand it, that makes no difference. The recipient is supposed to get the (GPL) code from the same place they got the software. I've forgotten the details, but there's more than one way this can be done, from supplying the code on standard media, along with the binary and/or device, from the provider's web-site, or via a written offer, good for some number (3?) of years, to supply the code upon request, (for which a "reasonable" fee (media, shipping and handling) may be charged). I seem to vaguely recall that there were a few court cases, or at least legal actions, over this point. |
| dinotrac Aug 17, 2011 7:59 PM EDT |
>The recipient is supposed to get the (GPL) code from the same place they got the software That's not exactly the requirement. The people who provide the code are responsible for making sure it is available to you. They can sell you disks, they can charge you fees. They can arrange for somebody else to host it, etc. They have an affirmative obligation to make it available, but the details get a little hazy after that. |
| jdixon Aug 17, 2011 9:13 PM EDT |
> They have an affirmative obligation to make it available, And to tell you that it's available, and how to get it. That's the section that could possibly come back to bite the Android manufacturers. Are instructions for obtaining the code provided with the product? Not having owned an Android phone, I don't know. |
| tracyanne Aug 17, 2011 10:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:Not having owned an Android phone, I don't know. And I can'r remember |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 20, 2011 11:48 AM EDT |
> And I can'r remember If you find a cure for that, let me know. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!