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

Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code

grapheneos.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 350 posts

Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code

#281

Post by terminalbraid »

Someone wrote: post #274
grapheneos wrote: post #114

They stopped pushing tags for any of the Pixel kernel or userspace driver repositories to AOSP. They also stopped pushing AOSP releases specific to Pixels which is why AOSP now only gets yearly releases, QPR2 releases and security backports to both of those. Other OEMs use the yearly and theoretically also the QPR2 releases. Both the yearly and QPR2 releases get monthly security backports. Since they dropped Pixel su…

> GPL doesn't set a standard time limit for providing the sources, but that doesn't mean they can delay it indefinitely The GPL doesn’t require them to provide the sources to the world; it requires them to provide it only to those who are in possession of the object code, and even then, _if_ they sell the product with a written offer to get the source code (¿Do they?): - only upon request, - only for three years or f…

> The GPL doesn’t require them to provide the sources to the world;

I don't see how this is relevant. The people making the request are within those boundaries. The rest is moot. The spirit of the GPL is that graphene is entitled to the GPLd source in some way and google must reasonably comply.

Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code

#282

Post by shrubby »

grapheneos wrote: post #114

They stopped pushing tags for any of the Pixel kernel or userspace driver repositories to AOSP. They also stopped pushing AOSP releases specific to Pixels which is why AOSP now only gets yearly releases, QPR2 releases and security backports to both of those. Other OEMs use the yearly and theoretically also the QPR2 releases. Both the yearly and QPR2 releases get monthly security backports. Since they dropped Pixel su…

Okay, I wanted a Pixel because of GrapheneOS, but thanks Google for wiping that desire.

Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code

#285

Post by rpdillon »

devy wrote: post #68
bitpush wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google refusing to do so means Google wants to violate the GPLv2 Not an expert in GPL, but does it say that the source code needs to be provided by a url?

GPL doesn't require them to publish the source in git. FWIW, Google can be compliant and publish the source in Physical Medium too if they opt too. Also, the OP did mentioned that Google also squashed the git commit to a single commit for whatever reason.

No, both sections a and b of part 3 of GPLv2 specify it should be machine readable.

Would be interesting to see the court case where they argued the printed sheets machine need a bulb because of OCR!

Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code

#287

Post by fsflover »

palata wrote: post #268
fsflover wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but unfortunately I think it's an uphill battle because of all the proprietary firmwares? In my GNU/Linux phone, all drivers are FLOSS and all pieces of firmware are backed into the replaceable peripherals (modem M.2 card and WiFi M.2 card).

And the battery life is a lot worse than Android, isn't it? And would you say you have access to all the hardware features supported by Android? "It's good enough for me" is not the same as "it is comparable to Android".

Yes, the battery life is worse. I have a spare battery with me.

> And would you say you have access to all the hardware features supported by Android?

No. GNU/Linux phones require compromises. Fighting for your rights does as well.

Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code

#288

Post by asdfsa32 »

CBLT wrote: post #269
asdfsa32 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A git hash is cryptographically secure. It doesn't matter how you distribute it. That is the entire point you're missing.

The Google Drive link is to a simple tarball, not a git artifact.

Yes, that is the problem, as the titles says "Google has stopped pushing Git tags". No git tags, no cryptographic content hash.

Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code

#289

Post by tsimionescu »

usef- wrote: post #207
tsimionescu wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since they're saying "Google phone", not "Android phone", I imagine the next purchase could be a Samsung or such.

Comments elsewhere in this thread say other major brands are even more locked down. Edit: > With One UI 8, Samsung removed the OEM-unlocking capability globally, > Samsung uses a physical Knox Warranty Bit/e-fuse. Loading unofficial software can permanently trip it. This seems far worse than google releasing source slowly

Samsung was a bad example of a plausible alternative, yes.

Re: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Android source code

#290

Post by ajross »

grapheneos wrote: post #188
ajross wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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.

We said artificially delaying it for weeks or more is how they're violating it, not using Google Drive. It's also not provided in the preferred form for modification. It isn't in the form expected by the build system and causes it to not function in the way it did for their own builds.

Well to be fair you didn't say that in the linked tweet. Delay is bad too, but again the original spirit of the license was absolutely OK with the idea of weeks-long delays. Our modern world of instant github access has spoiled us, but courts are not going to see damages from just "we had to ship a month late" unless you can show something more specific.
Post reply on HN