Re:Google admits Android 'both open and closed'
by natesm on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @05:13PM
(#2444225)
Google releases the code that they have to (the kernel, anything else GPLed). Most of Android is not under the GPL (and it was written by Google anyways, so they can do whatever they want).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Lice...
Re:Google admits Android 'both open and closed'
by cube13 on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @05:31PM
(#2444317)
Asus has also released the Honeycomb code that is covered by the GPL for their tablet:
http://www.androidtabletworld.com/android-news/asus-eee-pad-...
Re:Google admits Android 'both open and closed'
by Peaker on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @06:00PM
(#2444422)
This is a strong case for the GPL in the GPL-vs-BSD debate. Lots of the BSD-license proponents are claiming that the GPL would turn commercial companies away, and that if they give back due to the GPL, they'd do so for the BSD projects too.
Re:Google admits Android 'both open and closed'
by SwellJoe on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @05:11PM
(#2444215)
No. The code in question is not under the GPL, it is under the Apache license, which is a very liberal license that does not require distribution of source.
Re:Google admits Android 'both open and closed'
by olalonde on Wednesday April 13, 2011 @05:33PM
(#2444335)
No, for a very simple reason: only the copyright holder(s) of a product can enforce its license. They won't sue themselves for not following their own license ;) Of course, Google doesn't own all parts of Android and for instance, has to distribute the Linux Kernel's source code with every binary release of Android.
Is Google violating the GPL by not releasing code that is shipping on devices (eg. Xoom). Didn't Tivo end up having to give up some of there code because it was based on linux? Is this a similar situation?