PDA

View Full Version : Linux is no longer GPL'd.... Can Someone Explain the Android OS 'Free' License to me?



earthpigg
October 23rd, 2008, 04:32 AM
I haven't found any threads on this, but read the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(mobile_device_platform)).... which tells me just enough to be confused about what i thought i understood about FOSS and GPL software.

How is Android using the Linux kernel but not using the GPL? Why can google randomly choose some other FOSS license? Can i go ahead and unilaterally declare some random license a 'free software license' and distribute Linux using that?

How is this operating system

It has also come to light that some functionality will be reserved for approved applications making it impossible for 3rd parties to develop some types of application to compete with pre-install applications such as Marketplace.
free software...?

Wasn't GPL 2 re-written to GPL 3 specifically to combat Tivoization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization)?

is that why Google is somehow trying (succeeding) in using a different software license (Apache)?


these questions are not sarcastic, i am genuinely puzzled.

zachtib
October 23rd, 2008, 04:33 AM
the kernel is still gplv2, not gplv3

linus has made it very clear he does not live gplv3

earthpigg
October 23rd, 2008, 04:34 AM
.... are they using the last Linux kernel that was released under GPL 2 and getting away with it because of that somehow?

cardinals_fan
October 23rd, 2008, 04:34 AM
.... are they using the last Linux kernel that was released under GPL 2 and getting away with it because of that somehow?
What do you mean by "the last"? Linus Torvalds isn't using GPL v3.

LaRoza
October 23rd, 2008, 04:36 AM
However, Google has since announced that all parts of the OS will be released under the Apache License where applicable and under the GPL elsewhere.

From the wikipedia page.

TBOL3
October 23rd, 2008, 04:41 AM
Yup. That's pretty much it. The linux kernel is still under the GPL, but the new stuff is under a different license.

Another example of this type of thing is ubuntu and firefox. Linux is under the GPL, and Firefox is under Mozilla's license. But they can be packaged together.

dhughes
October 23rd, 2008, 05:38 AM
It's like OS X which is BSD based (not sure if it's freeBSD or not), the kernel 'Darwin' is Open Source but all the added stuff; everything else other than the kernel is not. It's like Linux which is the kernel and GNU which is everything else you see.

MaxIBoy
October 23rd, 2008, 05:57 AM
Not really, the BSD licenses allow companies to rip off code and put it in closed-source stuff (that's how Microsoft got Internet support into their products.) Apple could've kept Darwin closed-source, but they were hoping to profit from community code contributions for free (which didn't work out, but still.)

Darwin is based on NEXTstep, with bits and pieces taken from various other BSDs. (Although all current BSDs forked from FreeBSD at one point or another.)

earthpigg
October 23rd, 2008, 08:53 PM
well then. it looks like linus is indeed set on sticking with gpl 2. see this link (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/27/339) for details....

nvteighen
October 23rd, 2008, 09:14 PM
Wait a minute. Are you sure they're trying to re-license the kernel? Or have they just created non-GPL stuff around the GPL Linux kernel?

If it's the second, it's absolutely legal, as it is considered usage of the kernel, not a derivative work.

Mr. Picklesworth
October 23rd, 2008, 09:20 PM
Simple answer:
Android has nothing to do with the kernel. It just runs on it.

bruce89
October 23rd, 2008, 09:44 PM
Another example of this type of thing is ubuntu and firefox. Linux is under the GPL, and Firefox is under Mozilla's license. But they can be packaged together.

That's not the case for a couple of reasons:

Firefox is not a derivative of the kernel.
Mozilla products are tri-licensed under the GPL, the LGPL and the MPL.

forrestcupp
October 23rd, 2008, 10:12 PM
That's not the case for a couple of reasons:

Firefox is not a derivative of the kernel.
Mozilla products are tri-licensed under the GPL, the LGPL and the MPL.

I think he was trying to show an example of why it's ok to have non-GPL stuff together with the GPL'ed kernel. If you're not satisfied with that example, there are others. Like the fact that people legally use Opera or proprietary video drivers with Linux.

It's ok to use software with different licenses together. You just can't modify the code and release it under a different license.