Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 284 posts

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#41

Post by kemonocode »

saagarjha wrote: post #5
icebraining wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you are the author of all the code, so that the GPL doesn't actually apply to you. In this case, the Telegram-FOSS people take the original Telegram source (which is GPL licensed) and redistribute it, so they can't distribute a non-entirely-free apk without violating the original license. Other apps using, for example, GPL licensed libraries or accepting third-party contributions under the GPL exclusively are…

Telegram violates multiple open source licenses, so I wouldn’t hold it up as an example.

I have yet to see any proof of this. Granted, it's true that Telegram's backend is closed-source and that part of the infrastructure is completely opaque, but at least they're sincere about it, unlike Signal's open-but-not-quite[1] approach.

[1] https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#42

Post by sascha_sl »

hajxg wrote: post #7

I like Reddit comments, they are always so insightful. I always feel like I've gained a few IQ points after reading them; after an evening reading Reddit, I became Einstein, now I'm testing my new theory of everything. Thanks Reddit

Funny, I always get that reading HN comments, but then again, I can't really compare, I've cut down on reading reddit comments years ago, maybe it's time I follow suit for HN.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#43

Post by mehrdadn »

saagarjha wrote: post #25
krn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Telegram violates multiple open source licenses Any examples for those who would like to learn more about this?

I have a thing I’m writing that will go into more detail, but in short Telegram’s client applications (which are licensed under various incarnations of the GPL) are updated frequently while the source code in their publicly available repositories lags far behind. In addition, they use a number of open source libraries that at the very least require attribution, but Telegram does not follow their terms.

> while the source code in their publicly available repositories lags far behind

I don't think this violates GPL. GPL requires you to be able to receive the source if you want to, not that it be on an online repository. You might have to request it and have it sent to you.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#44

Post by squarefoot »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #19
Mbaqanga wrote: post #14

One day Google will regret having made Android open source and will try to fix it, but is it possible?

I think they already do. Isn't it what Play Services is really all about?

They never did. Releasing the source contributed creating the developers ecosystem we have today. What Google fears more than the Armageddon would be someone making a truly FOSS operating system capable of running on Android devices, and they prevent that by keeping device drivers and firmware tightly locked.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#45

Post by saagarjha »

kemonocode wrote: post #41
saagarjha wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telegram violates multiple open source licenses, so I wouldn’t hold it up as an example.

I have yet to see any proof of this. Granted, it's true that Telegram's backend is closed-source and that part of the infrastructure is completely opaque, but at least they're sincere about it, unlike Signal's open-but-not-quite[1] approach. [1] https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

> I have yet to see any proof of this.

See https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift/issues/163. I don’t know too much about Signal other than the fact that it exists, so I can’t judge it in comparison to Telegram.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#46

Post by saagarjha »

mehrdadn wrote: post #43
saagarjha wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a thing I’m writing that will go into more detail, but in short Telegram’s client applications (which are licensed under various incarnations of the GPL) are updated frequently while the source code in their publicly available repositories lags far behind. In addition, they use a number of open source libraries that at the very least require attribution, but Telegram does not follow their terms.

> while the source code in their publicly available repositories lags far behind I don't think this violates GPL. GPL requires you to be able to receive the source if you want to, not that it be on an online repository. You might have to request it and have it sent to you.

I mean, I could, but I think it's fair for me to assume that the GitHub repository that the official website links to as the source code for their client is where they’d publish up-to-date code.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#47

Post by mehrdadn »

saagarjha wrote: post #46
mehrdadn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while the source code in their publicly available repositories lags far behind I don't think this violates GPL. GPL requires you to be able to receive the source if you want to, not that it be on an online repository. You might have to request it and have it sent to you.

I mean, I could, but I think it's fair for me to assume that the GitHub repository that the official website links to as the source code for their client is where they’d publish up-to-date code.

They might well publish it right there if you ask. Just saying they haven't violated the license as long as they have a written offer to provide you with the source code somehow if you ask. (That's what GPLv2 seems to require.)

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#48

Post by Wowfunhappy »

userbinator wrote: post #10
geofft wrote: post #2

You can still write free software that uses it and produces a not-entirely-free artifact when compiled, though, right? (Is there a distribution restriction on the artifact, or is it impermissible to link it with GPL apps, or something?) I'm curious if the free software apps are compelled not to link it to preserve the free software status of their code, or just voluntarily refusing on principle (which is laudable, to…

Thought experiment: write an application that automatically downloads and combines code with all sorts of legally incompatible licenses to create an application and installs it on an Android device. If personally doing it is legal (and basically unenforceable), what about making it easy for others to? Besides, unless you're a "radical Stallmanist" (for lack of better term), chances are you have a mix of proprietary a…

My understanding is that what you describe is completely legal.

ZFS on Linux is a good example of this. ZFS and the Linux kernel are both open source, but their licenses are incompatible with one another—ie, you can't combine the code.

A common workaround for this problem is to compile the source on the user's machine. When you install ZFS in Debian, apt will automatically download the ZFS and Linux source code, recompile the kernel with ZFS included, and install the result. This is all completely invisible to the user, except for the absurdly long install time.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#50

Post by javagram »

geofft wrote: post #2

You can still write free software that uses it and produces a not-entirely-free artifact when compiled, though, right? (Is there a distribution restriction on the artifact, or is it impermissible to link it with GPL apps, or something?) I'm curious if the free software apps are compelled not to link it to preserve the free software status of their code, or just voluntarily refusing on principle (which is laudable, to…

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

so anything that is not distributed with the operating system needs to be available as source code, so that you can credibly offer to distribute the source code to the recipients.

Post reply on HN