Can someone with more context explain what this means and maybe the background?

josephcsible 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Android 16 QPR1 rolled out in binary-only form to phones that are blessed by Google over two months ago, and it's only just now that they bothered to actually release the source of their open-source operating system.

▲

o11c 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

And it is very important to remember: being able to do this is the reason why companies have brainwashed the Internet into choosing the MIT license for everything.

With GPL-only code, the world would be much nicer for all of us.

	▲	semi-extrinsic 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Some of the reason why the MIT license etc. is more popular surely has to do with the license text itself. I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license. With the GPL, not so much. It's verbose and complex and has different versions. Would it really be impossible to have a license with similar brevity as MIT but similar consequences as GPL?

▲

bitpush 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> it's only just now that they bothered to actually release the source of their open-source operating system.

Do you really need to have snark for an open source project?

	▲	josephcsible 29 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Open-source projects maintained by individual developers working for free absolutely deserve more respect than that, but ones maintained by the most profitable company in the world [1] do not, especially when they go out of their way to change from doing the right thing to doing the wrong thing [2]. [1]: https://www.financecharts.com/screener/most-profitable [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484927
	▲	pseudosavant an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I thought we were talking about the Android project? /sarcasm
	▲	ehnto 27 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's Google, I think they've sucked up enough of our digital lives and economy to handle a bit of snark.
	▲	MarsIronPI 13 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yes. Precisely because it's "open source", not "free".
	▲	wongogue an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		A project which uses and depends on a lot of other third-party OSS? Maybe.

▲

joecool1029 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This means the source code is finally being released for the quarterly release that came out in september. Roms like lineageos had to target QPR0 which came out back in June but can now bring up to this. Google used to release the source to AOSP right after the releases happened, now they don't.

	▲	gpm 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Additional context per fediverse thread: The GPL code (i.e. kernel) was released on time, this is the AOSP userspace portions which Google isn't legally obligated to release (which doesn't make it not a dick move not to).