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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday January 18 2016, @05:48AM

    by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Monday January 18 2016, @05:48AM (#291012) Homepage Journal

    That's not strictly true. From the text of the GPL v2 [gnu.org]:

    You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

    You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. [emphasis added]

    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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   4  

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday January 18 2016, @01:04PM

    by TheRaven (270) on Monday January 18 2016, @01:04PM (#291092) Journal

    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