Thread

1. wps · 1789760710 · focus · HN ↗

   The amount of roadblocks Google is putting up for GrapheneOS is just ridiculous. None of their decisions make any sense, from the delayed source patches upstream, to the embargos, attestation issues, etc. Google simply regrets android being open source.

   1. godelski · 1789763541 · focus · HN ↗

      I hope people remember this when advocating for chromium. Just because it is open source doesn't mean they don't control it. We need to start the long process of hard forking now or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.

        > Google simply regrets android being open source.
      

      Android wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't open source. With all the work from outside Google. The same is true chrome.

      But they won't learn that on their own. They are breaking the deals. So we move. We force their hand

      1. nomel · 1789763674 · focus · HN ↗

         > So we move. We force their hand

         What do you have in mind?

         1. shevy-java · 1789764032 · focus · HN ↗

            Well, it is time to realise that GPL and similar variants, are better in the long term. I like MIT too, but GPL worked so much better for the linux kernel. Google and others abuse the ecosystem of open source contributors here.

            1. microtonal · 1789764485 · focus · HN ↗

               You mean the Linux kernel that the GrapheneOS project has to request every update for and then has to wait up to weeks to get a Google Drive link?

               The GPL is worth nothing if nobody is enforcing it aggressively.

               1. dvdkon · 1789767729 · focus · HN ↗

                  The GPL is the only reason they even get that. More enforcement would certainly be good, but it's not like the GPL is worthless without a legal team backing you up.
               2. nomel · 1789768045 · focus · HN ↗

                  Could you quote the part of the GPL that they're not adhering to (which you seem to be implying), in this situation?

                  1. microtonal · 1789796198 · focus · HN ↗

                     There has been a long discussion about this a while ago on HN when these delays came up. The relevant blurb:

                     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,

                     Many people argued that 'customarily used for software interchange' is worded-as is to always be relevant to the times when the license is applied and that providing access to a Git repository is customary nowadays. In fact:

                     - The upstream Linux tree is distributed through Git.

                     - The relevant Pixel kernel sources used to be distributed through Git.

                     IANAL, so I am not sure how this part of the license will hold up in court, but the spirit is clear. Providing a Google Drive link is not customarily used for software interchange.

                     Also, I think it is fairly clear that the procedure is put in place to make everyone's life difficult, given that the relevant source used to be distributed through Git.

               3. mitxela · 1789779340 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yes, as opposed to the Fuchsia kernel where they wouldn't even get that. We're lucky Google is institutionally incapable of creating things.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.