Earlier quoted context omitted.
But nobody has done this, which is why it's a problem for Graphene
Maybe should someone should do it then?
Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code
101–110 of 350 posts
Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
But nobody has done this, which is why it's a problem for Graphene
Maybe should someone should do it then?
Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code
#103isn't this just malicious compliance? not clear how this would violate GPLv2?
Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code
#104I really don't understand the thought process here. Judging by public statements, Google is one of the 3 big western AI companies. Surely they should be rolling in cash and working hard towards AGI. And yet, for whatever reason, they can't help themselves from further restricting user freedoms on Android. Why? I don't want to be conspiratorial, but surely it's not money, right? It has to be control. Someone high up a…
Both. Google has plenty of government contracts, they are undoubtedly pushing for more surveillance, and also on the inverse side, we are now in an age where users can create their own apps to do whatever they want within a few hours, sothis risks their Google Play Store profits
I don't get it, are the government contracts somehow contingent on them oppressing users and stifling open source?
>we are now in an age where users can create their own apps to do whatever they want within a few hours, sothis risks their Google Play Store profits
If that's the reason, they're doing a pretty poor job, since it's trivially bypassable by running "adb install".
Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code
#105If 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."
> "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." Couldn't simply someone mirror these Google Drive folders?
https://gitlab.com/grapheneos/kernel_pixel/-/tree/17-base
https://gitlab.com/grapheneos/kernel_pixel_muzel/-/tree/17-b...
We also have mirrors of the QPR1 Beta and QPR2 Beta code there too.
It's not meant to be distributed as a tarball or a single Git repository. The build system runs Git commands to determine the revisions of each component. It's supposed to be in dozens of Git repositories. They provide repo metadata as part of the tarballs on Google Drive which you can see there but it's not a full replacement for the Git repository layout expected by builds. It's somewhat convenient having it in a monorepo but it's not the way it's meant to be and the build system makes it clear that it isn't happy about it despite running.
It would be nice if Google would simply push it to the Git repositories still available on AOSP again. The repositories still exist both internally and publicly but they're making it a hassle instead of simply pushing tags.
We publicly complained about these and other Pixel changes as they were ongoing and that directly led to our Motorola partnership. It was in Google's financial interest to work with us so we continue using Pixels and that's still the case. They're welcome to reach out to us and start collaborating again. We made a lot of upstream contributions and aren't their enemy.
Google should want more people to use their devices, apps and services. It shows how heavily they're violating antitrust laws by using monopolies to protect other monopolies when they sacrifice revenue for their devices and apps/services for it.
Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code
#106Relevant: https://keepandroidopen.org/ > Starting in 2027*, a silent update, nonconsensually pushed by Google, will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID.
Doesn’t Apple do the same?
yes and Apple does it for the 30% lock-in. Apple does it to protect their ecosystem. Apple also does not care about their customers, their developers, their suppliers or their employees. Closed systems do not help the populous. This is about money, captive audience and subscription revenues.
Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
GrapheneOS is arguing that throwing away the metadata of however many commits and squashing them into a messy tarball is not the "preferred form of the work for making modifications", and that a manual process where you have to fill out a form in order to get a Google Drive link a week later is not "a medium customarily used for software interchange" in current times. Those are quotes from the GPLv2.
If distributing under 3(b) then it's legitimate to only supply source on request. Historically source has been distributed without revision control history or metadata and been considered acceptable (the source tarballs on gnu.org are snapshots, for instance) so I think the preferred form argument is also tricky. I agree that there's huge value in having the individual commits, but from a GPL perspective we had this…
Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
GrapheneOS is arguing that throwing away the metadata of however many commits and squashing them into a messy tarball is not the "preferred form of the work for making modifications", and that a manual process where you have to fill out a form in order to get a Google Drive link a week later is not "a medium customarily used for software interchange" in current times. Those are quotes from the GPLv2.
If distributing under 3(b) then it's legitimate to only supply source on request. Historically source has been distributed without revision control history or metadata and been considered acceptable (the source tarballs on gnu.org are snapshots, for instance) so I think the preferred form argument is also tricky. I agree that there's huge value in having the individual commits, but from a GPL perspective we had this…
GrapheneOS might have a better case though if it's not just about understanding the code but about how the Android build system expects that everything is in Git.
Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
i.e. its no longer open source, now access is granted by permission.
what does the license say? provide source when asked or publish source? OSI is not clear on this either. ("Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, [...]")
Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code
#110isn't this just malicious compliance? not clear how this would violate GPLv2?
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.
The software also isn't in the preferred form for modification. The build system which runs Git commands and doesn't work as intended without it. You have to make a Git repository for it to work and there's meant to be a separate one for each separate component. It spews out errors.