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: 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?