That would probably be ok, though it might count as license avoidance....
As this is a relatively small community, can we ask the original authors
of the library at issue if they would release itt under GPL3? Or does it
explicitly allow GPL3 use?
Either way, I don't think this is going to go back to google, the
original authors probably don't want commercial entities altering and
closing code.
Personally I do understand the divide between the two major license
types. GPL (and similar) is open and cannot be used without the
derivatives being opened and without the distributors having obligations
to provide their source.
APL, BSD and similar are more about providing source for anyone to use
in any way they like.
Personally, i prefer my (miniscule) contributions stay under the GPL so
that anyone that wants to use them *must* give something back. Without
it we wouldn't have things like the Linksys WRT54 or NSLU2 scenes.
Mike (mwester) wrote:
And Microsoft laughs hysterically as the open-source movement -- which
Microsoft could not kill -- turns on itself, and proceeds to destroy
itself, shouting the ridiculous battle cry: "My Openness is better than
yours! Glory to <insert-favorite-license-name-here>!".
This sort of silliness -- and it matter not who is at fault, or even if
anyone is at fault with the entire licensing debacle -- is the sort of
thing that proves that open-source is really no different from
commercial work. It ends up just feeding the same ultimate societal
leeches -- lawyers.
So, putting aside my total disgust at the concept of duplication of
effort (and bugs and time), and speaking as someone who wishes only to
consume, not author or distribute, can anyone just post a Makefile that
can pull the right code bits from the right places, and let each user
build their own? Or is that illegal too?
Sigh. Somebody tell me how this is any different from an iphone, again,
please? (No, don't -- it was a rhetorical question.)
Mike (mwester)
Marcelo wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Marcelo <[email protected]> wrote:
That doesn't clear the other problem though: rild _is_ APL2, which
means you can't just take GPL2 code and link rild against it, dlopen
included.
Thinking out loud here, maybe the best way out of this is a clean room
implementation of the bits and pieces we need. To make this easier,
someone could take a look a the existing code, and provide a set of
tests that a replacement implementation has to pass to be able to
replace the existing code.
In oder words, do a TDD/BDD implementation between to parties. One
party provides the tests and the other party provides the
implementation.
The resulting code would be best put under the BSD license. In that
way we can use a GPLed library like the one Michael mentioned without
much worries *and* we can also contribute the code back to Google. Of
course, the resulting implementation for the Freerunner (the one using
the GPLed library) would be distributed under the GPL as a whole.
Marcelo
_______________________________________________
android-freerunner mailing list
[email protected]
http://android.koolu.org/listinfo.cgi/android-freerunner-koolu.org
_______________________________________________
android-freerunner mailing list
[email protected]
http://android.koolu.org/listinfo.cgi/android-freerunner-koolu.org
_______________________________________________
android-freerunner mailing list
[email protected]
http://android.koolu.org/listinfo.cgi/android-freerunner-koolu.org
