News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Developer Joe Hewitt Tears Into Android’s Definition Of “Open”. Parent comment

Re:Developer Joe Hewitt Tears Into Android’s Definition Of “... by wtallis on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @03:09AM (#1810344)
If Google actually cared about Android being open, they would have used GPLv3, to ensure that it stays open. In reality, they simply couldn't negotiate with carriers as well as Apple, so they've chosen to re-frame their capitulation as "openness".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Developer Joe Hewitt Tears Into Android’s Definition Of “... by aphexairlines on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @04:36AM (#1810486)
Likewise, if Linus cared about Linux being open, he would have supported switching the kernel to AGPLv3....

Likewise, if the FSF cared about glibc being open, they would have switched the library to AGPLv3....

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Developer Joe Hewitt Tears Into Android’s Definition Of “... by biafra on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @03:41AM (#1810388)
Thats a philosophical question.

Which is more open? GPLv3 or Apache/BSD license?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing#Permissiv...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Developer Joe Hewitt Tears Into Android’s Definition Of “... by calloc on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @02:48PM (#1812370)
Apache has more restrictions than the BSD license ... why are you grouping the two of them together?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Developer Joe Hewitt Tears Into Android’s Definition Of “... by biafra on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @03:20PM (#1812586)
Both are permissive.
[ Parent | on HN ]