SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
You may have heard recently of the Remix OS, a fork of Android that targets desktop computing. The operating system, which was created by former Google employees and features a traditional desktop layout in addition to the ability to run Android apps, was previewed on Ars Technica a few weeks ago, but it was not actually released for end-users to download until earlier this week.
Now that Remix OS has been released, The Linux Homefront Project is reporting that the Android-based operating system, for which source code is not readily available, violates both the GPL and the Apache License. The RemixOS installer includes a "Remix OS USB Tool" that is really a re-branded copy of popular disk imaging tool UNetbootin, which falls under the GPL. Additionally, browsing through the install image files reveals that the operating system is based on the Apache Licensed Android-x86 project. From the article:
Output is absolutely clear – no differences! No authors, no changed files, no trademarks, just copy-paste development.
Is this a blatant disregard for the GPL and Apache licenses by an optimistic startup, or were the authors too eager to release that they forgot to provide access to the repo?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by NotSanguine on Monday January 18 2016, @04:49AM
Or so says [jide.com] a self-proclaimed backer of RemixOS, Alicia Hanwell.
Apparently, there is also a clone called PhoenixOS [phoenixos.com], which is supported by the Android-x86 Team [android-x86.org]. Details for obtaining sources for that are available from here [android-x86.org].
I also checked the "evidence" provided in TFA, and the "RemixOS USB Tool" (apparently an unmodified copy of UNetbootin [wikipedia.org]), which is the root of TFA's claim appears to be licensed under the GPL V2 [gnu.org].
IIRC, the relevant portion of GPL V2 is in section 2 of the license:
This begs the question as to whether or not RemixOS (less the USB Tool) is 'not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves'.
If the answer is yes, and JIDE provides sources (or links to sources -- i.e., from the Unetbootin repository) for UNetbootin, then this is a non-starter.
If the answer is no, then the copyright owner (Geza Kovacs) may be able to sue JIDE.
As such, whether or not Ms. Hanwell's statement is correct from a legal standpoint is an open question. I guess that will need to be resolved by the courts, assuming someone with standing actually bothers to sue.
IANAL. YMMV.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 18 2016, @05:23AM
My apologies. I left out the second part of TFA's claim, that is, that JIDE violates the Apache license on Android-x86 [android-x86.org].
This is, as the AC said, pretty unlikely since:
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#Version_2.0) [wikipedia.org]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 18 2016, @05:32AM
Just to confirm, I downloaded the latest Android-x86 sources, and it is indeed licensed under the Apache License v2.0 [apache.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday January 18 2016, @05:26AM
They distribute unetbootin binaries, they have to make the sources available themselves, and pay for their own bandwidth to do it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Monday January 18 2016, @05:39AM
If that is the case, Geza Kovacs may have standing to sue.
Not sure what damages he could get, since JIDE is giving away (but only to those they choose) RemixOS.
Then again, I suppose he could sue the vendors (including JIDE [kickstarter.com]) who are shipping hardware for a piece of the profits
Again IANAL, but I'm guessing that the likely remedy would be for JIDE (and perhaps the other hardware vendors) to host a source repository for UNetbootin.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday January 18 2016, @05:48AM
That's not strictly true. From the text of the GPL v2 [gnu.org]:
As such, JIDE could conceivably charge ${FEE} for copies of the source on USB key, CD, paper or even printed on edible panties, and distribute it via snail mail if they choose. They do not need to host the files online.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday January 18 2016, @01:04PM
As such, JIDE could conceivably charge ${FEE} for copies of the source on USB key, CD, paper or even printed on edible panties, and distribute it via snail mail if they choose. They do not need to host the files online.
Elsewhere in the GPL it indicates that the code must be provided on a medium commonly used for software interchange, so I doubt that edible panties would be sufficient. Similarly, posting the files online is also not enough by itself for GPLv2 (it is for GPLv3), you must either provide a written offer, good for three years, to provide the source, or you must include it with the original distribution.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Informative) by fnj on Monday January 18 2016, @05:48AM
Why are you overreaching? Assuming unetbootin is GPL V2 [gnu.org]:
"...
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
...
1. ... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy ...
...
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
..."
Your allegation that they must "pay for their own bandwidth" is the overreach.
Choosing (b) allows avoiding any unreimbursed expense to themselves.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2016, @07:18AM
Your allegation that they must "pay for their own bandwidth" is the overreach.
Indeed, the GPL only requires an offer to provide source code on demand.
Hipster morons forget that Stallman is a hippie and not a hipster, Internet access was rare when the GNU project began, and bandwidth was irrelevant back when FSF literally mailed tapes.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday January 18 2016, @03:13PM
IF THEY HAD DONE IT, then yes.
However, they did not. They have shipped. No such offer was included.
Therefore (b) is no longer an option for them.
I'm not overreaching I am telling you the truth. Read what you posted yourself!
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday January 19 2016, @02:44AM
No they don't. They have to make source available but could choose to only offer it on a CDROM requiring a reasonable (vaguely defined) fee for processing, handling, and shipping. That could be $20.00 or considerably more.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0x663EB663D1E7F223
(Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday January 19 2016, @06:03AM
They *could* have done this, but they did not. This should be easy to understand. In order to qualify for that option they would have had to do that from the start, which they chose not to do.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2016, @07:00AM
"""
As such, whether or not Ms. Hanwell's statement is correct from a legal standpoint is an open question. I guess that will need to be resolved by the courts, assuming someone with standing actually bothers to sue.
"""
Ms. Hanwell is a woman. Cnts can do whatever they want with mmmaaallleeessss code.
Including disregard the licensing.
This is a woman's world.
No marrying little girls either, that went out in the 1880s because this is a woman's world.
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2016, @07:37AM
Women can rape as many girls as they want. God loves lesbian cougars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2016, @08:11AM
Why don't you go upstairs out of the basement and have your usual session [urbandictionary.com] with mom?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2016, @04:49AM
I thought that was pretty hard to do, b/c the license was so permissive.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Gravis on Monday January 18 2016, @05:36AM
i was curious about the UNetbootin claim so i did a bit of searching and found this: UNetbootin [fsdn.com] vs. Remix OS USB Tool [droidmen.com]
the strings, the layout and the spacing are all identical. seems pretty blatant.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2016, @07:08AM
Oh no. Somebody give the unmodified sources please. Oh wait. If the sources are unmodified I can get them from the original sources.
Lame. Lame. Lame.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday January 19 2016, @12:16AM
It's a pretty clear violation, but I suspect it is out of laziness or ignorance rather than malice. The way you would fix this problem is to make a meticulous list of all GPL software included, and either provide a link to the source code hosted online or include the sources yourself. Much like writing documentation, it's not a trivial amount of work, and given we are talking about former Google employees, they might just be ignorant of software licenses from their ivory tower.
Putting your software into an OS does not make the OS a derivative work [lawyer citation needed]. Rule of thumb: a derivative software work includes the original work during compilation. If you have some modifications that are compiled together with original code as one, then you need to abide by the distribution requirements of the GPL. Sticking a bunch of GPL software into one OS does not; in this case you need only make available the source code for the GPL components, not any glue software or the entire OS.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!