Some details on why Google is as finicky as they are with (L)GPL code is located at http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html. The executive summary is that because device manufacturers use static system images on read-only partitions, they cannot comply fully with (even) the LGPL. I am unsure of a more detailed reason and from here can only speculate.
>From discussions I have had there is a bit more leniency with the Android Open Source Project's external project space (source code included but not necessarily pre-compiled with the OS images) for C code (versus C++) but the situation sounds like they still don't find it ideal. Again, I can only speculate on why. Even with the reservations, they still seem receptive of the changes. The current discussion thread is located at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/android-contrib/mi2l8ln_O-I Cheers, Nathaniel On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Steve Grubb <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, August 20, 2012 02:33:36 PM Nathaniel Husted wrote: >> For a while I've been working on a project that ports/forks Audit to >> the Android platform (https://github.com/nwhusted/AuditdAndroid). I >> currently have a proof of concept in operation and I am working on >> getting the relevant kernel code back-patched and the userland code >> integrated in Android. One of the primary issues raised at the moment >> is the Android Open Source Project code base is not compatible with >> GPL code. I am currently unaware of any userland audit interface that >> is not under the GPL. I was wondering if anyone on the list knew of >> any, if they even exist? Any information is much appreciated. > > libaudit is under LGPL which gives you as much latitude as Glibc. The Linux > kernel itself is GPLv2. So, what's the problem with GPL on Android? > > -Steve -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
