| ▲ | Google replaced Git tags for certain source code with obtaining via Google Drive(grapheneos.social) |
| 126 points by Animux 4 hours ago | 31 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | hatthew an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you're like me and struggled to parse the title, my understanding is, "To obtain certain source code from Google, you could previously reference git tags, but now you have to fill out a form and wait for a human to give you a google drive link." |
| |
| ▲ | g-b-r 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Let's just forget about the tags, the point is that they're not publishing what Graphene OS needs on any git repository that they can access. Even before that it had been jokes of repositories, but at least you didn't have to ask for someone every time and wait for them to respond to the request. (that's my understanding) |
|
|
| ▲ | jmole 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| “In violation of GPL” is a stretch. Can’t imagine Google is making the process of obtaining source code easier on themselves though. Android has always been more source-open than “open source”. The vast majority of community contributions that make it into the codebase are security fixes and small bug fixes. Everything else is essentially all the work of Google and (to some extent) Samsung. |
| |
| ▲ | jraph 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Open source doesn't imply open to contributions. And you could imagine source available software that's not open source but takes contributions (and this is not theoretical, I've seen this in the wild). (However, that's quite orthogonal to being a dick about making the source code that you must share available) | |
| ▲ | jsiepkes an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Everything else is essentially all the work of Google and (to some extent) Samsung. There is plenty in Android which isn't the work of Google. For starters the Kotlin implementation and the Java implementation (OpenJDK). | |
| ▲ | ajross 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > “In violation of GPL” is a stretch. The originally envisioned distribution method, in fact, was "Send FSF a blank 9-track tape and they'll fill it and mail it back". Nor, obviously, does anything prevent someone who downloads this from Drive from mirroring it on GitHub or wherever. This is arguably bad stewardship of a historically open source project. It's certainly not a license violation. | | |
| ▲ | Brian_K_White 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's paying a bill in pennies. | | |
| ▲ | ajross an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's not even that. Downstream projects host their own mirrors already, this is an annoying hoop to jump through for the maintainers (basically suck down a bunch of tarballs for every release, analogous to grabbing stuff from FTP sites back in the day), but not exactly a terrible hardship compared to the really very significant work of maintaining a large project. | | |
| ▲ | simoncion 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | There might be some merit to a claim that Google Drive isn't a medium customarily used for software distribution these days, but, yeah, it's definitely not paying a thousand+ cent bill in pennies, and I'm skeptical that it's a violation of the letter of the GPL. It is definitely a dick move by Google. | | |
| ▲ | jraph 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > There might be some merit to a claim that Google Drive isn't a medium customarily used for software distribution these days I suppose forcing a means to share the source code could have been too restrictive, but the GPL only speaks about the shape of the source code itself (it should be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"), not how it is shared, so indeed, not a violation of the letter of the GPL I think. It's like what we had in France and the Hadopi, which requested ISPs to share the IP addresses of people torrenting a defined set of files. One of them sent them printed on paper... (But the malicious compliance was cool in this case). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dgellow 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Quoting the first tweet: > Google replaced pushing Git tags for certain source code with obtaining source code via Google Drive after making a request through Google Forms. It's completely ridiculous and they've gradually become very slow at handling requests. They're in clear violation of the GPLv2 now. |
| |
| ▲ | petcat an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > They're in clear violation of the GPLv2 now. I don't think they are? They could just as easily require requests for the source code to be made through the regular mail instead of a Google form. It's still (maliciously) compliant with the license. | | |
| ▲ | logological 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I don't think they are? If filling out the source code request form via Google Forms and/or accessing the download link via Google Drive requires the requester to run non-free (or at least non-GPLv2) JavaScript, then maybe it is in violation of section 6 of the GPLv2 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein") since the requester is then required to accept an entirely different set of licensing terms and conditions. | | |
| ▲ | nomel 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | IANAL, but I don't think you're interpreting that correctly. I believe section 3.b and 3.c are the rights this is referring to, where you can request the source, and even be changed for the physical act. Suggesting this extends to the license of the implementation of their contact system doesn't make sense. No method of contact, except physical, is going to meet your requirements, including sending postage, where the software used to sort your mail is not GPL. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rlpb 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Didn't Google work very hard to avoid any GPL in Android, apart from the kernel? What is in there that is GPL? | | |
| ▲ | cute_boi an hour ago | parent [-] | | I assume Linux. I am very thankful linux is gpl. Because of GPL these tech giants are forced to release source code. |
| |
| ▲ | gowld an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | How slow is "very slow" ? What is "certain source code"? Why is the OP being so coy about describing the problem? Here is the form: https://source.android.com/opensourcerequest This is interesting: > We might charge you a fee to cover the cost of processing. Your request must be sent according to whichever of the following rules applies: > Within three years of the date you received the product from Google that included the component or binary files that are the subject of your request. That "three years" is the minimum named in the GPLv2: https://opensource.org/license/gpl-2.0 | | |
| ▲ | HarlequinHair an hour ago | parent [-] | | > How slow is "very slow?"
The answer can be found two replies after:
> Initially, Google would usually provide access to the tarballs within a couple hours. Lately, they're often taking weeks to get back to us. They're the ones who chose to use this archaic system instead of pushing Git tags and it's their responsibility to handle requests promptly. > What is "certain source code"?
The OP seems to be GrapheneOS, which heavy patches AOSP.
I guess the context is Android source code and its security patches. > Why is the OP being so coy about describing the problem?
Not sure what you mean, I think they are explicit enough.
I guess it's clear enough for developers how an upstream update should go.
If people depend on big projects like AOSP, devs should be prompt in delivering source code, especially when it is mandatory by license. Can you give us more details on how/why you think the OP is being coy? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gumby 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| GPL says that you can give that link to anyone you want. If someone on HN has received one of these links, feel free to post it here. |
|
| ▲ | torgeros 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's like this fun fact where Microsoft needs to send you source code via post when you mail them a 5$ check. lol |
|
| ▲ | spydum 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| isn't this just malicious compliance? not clear how this would violate GPLv2? |
| |
| ▲ | osmsucks 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I agree. While this is a terrible move IMHO, from my superficial reading of the GPLv2 it doesn't really constitute a violation: the license imposes that the source be distributed to anyone who asks, potentially even charge a fee to cover its distribution costs, but it doesn't require that development happen in the open. |
|
|
| ▲ | dataflow 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can't help but wonder if making it costly for themselves the entire point. So that they can later turn around and bill that distribution fee to the recipient. |
|
| ▲ | demibabs an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can someone explain what this means? Am not familiar with the terminology |
| |
| ▲ | paxys 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Google uses libraries licensed under GPLv2 in Android (I’m not sure which specific part of Android the author is talking about), and so is required to make the full source code available for anyone to view. They previously used to publish a tarball of git tags, but now require you to fill out a Google form and then (weeks later) will share the source with you on Google Drive. | |
| ▲ | pydry 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Google apparently wants everybody to know how much they hate abiding by the terms of open source licenses. |
|
|
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Every year a new low. |
|
| ▲ | izacus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Source code of which components is that? It's not very clear from the mastodon thread. |
|
| ▲ | cute_boi an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I think leadership in Google is getting worst day by day. The main reason to use Android is mostly sideloading and open source and they are trying to sabotage both. |
| |
