301–310 of 350 posts
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.
Not the links per se (those are subject to terms of service), but the contents downloaded for those links are free to share. Anyone can throw them up in their own git repository or upload them to Github.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What will you purchase instead? It sucks that the modern smartphone OS market is a duopoly.
Fairphones are easy to unlock, repairable, have a long lifetime and offer a variety of different operating system distributions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I understand, they could send it to you printed and bound and charge you for the paper and postage if they want to.
A source code listing in a book/binder is a customary way of distributing software, albeit historic.
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…
> They need to do it in a reasonable amount of time. If they did that for years within hours and if we look at the tools available today, I would expect that "reasonable" equates to how they provided it prior: fast.
When google distribute the compiled code to me, I assume the source is already available.
If distribution means I buy a phone with compiled code, I expect the sources to be readily available.
I distribution means my phone download updated software - I expect the code to be available.
Only lasts until google pushes out gpl in favour of fuchsia or something - so they can finally run away from the community code they built the android system on. Bit until then I fully expect them to actually honor the license...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reasonable interpretation would be that they had a previous process that eliminated delivery latency and required no manual manpower for responding, so changing it has been done to induce artificial friction, against the intent of the license. Not that the intent of a license can be enforced.
Which licenses specify which time limit for disclosure of open source code (which is contributed to by many stakeholders)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which licenses specify which time limit for disclosure of open source code (which is contributed to by many stakeholders)?
That's why I said intent rather than letter. That said if we allow for arbitrary lengths of time, one could argue that sending back a reply indicating that the source will be delivered in 50-75 years is equally compliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well Google is becoming worse every year, but AOSP is way ahead of Linux on Mobile, for many reasons. The thing is, AOSP is open source. Just like Linux is not controlled by one of the TooBigTechs, I could imagine a fork of AOSP becoming a viable alternative without depending on Google anymore. And supporting alternative Android OSes (like GrapheneOS and LineageOS) is one way to support that vision. Linux on Mobile i…
One obstacle to making AOSP independent is the included apps. Last I knew they were overly basic and somewhat derelict because Google has long been favoring their own closed source counterparts, and third party manufacturers all ship their own (often kinda garbage) alternatives. Not insurmountable at all, building decent apps isn’t rocket science, but a substantial investment of time and energy nonetheless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And again, I'm really impressed by all the work done by the Linux on Mobile projects. I'm just saying it's an uphill battle, and it's nowhere close to any AOSP-based system.