Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Does Remix OS Violate the GPL and Apache Licenses?

posted by CoolHand on Monday January 18 2016, @04:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the right-or-wrong dept.

joekiser writes:

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?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Does Remix OS Violate the GPL and Apache Licenses? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 19 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 18 2016, @05:23AM

    by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Monday January 18 2016, @05:23AM (#291004) Homepage Journal

    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:

    The Apache License is permissive in that it does not require a derivative work of the software, or modifications to the original, to be distributed using the same license (unlike copyleft licenses – see comparison). It still requires application of the same license to all unmodified parts and, in every licensed file, any original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices in redistributed code must be preserved (excluding notices that do not pertain to any part of the derivative works); and, in every licensed file changed, a notification must be added stating that changes have been made to that file.

    (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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 18 2016, @05:32AM

    by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Monday January 18 2016, @05:32AM (#291006) Homepage Journal

    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