This is the reason why I’m not a fan of permissive licenses.
If Google is the sole copyright holder, a copyleft license would change nothing because they still have the option to change the license going forward.
That is actually a fair point, but I assume out of the millions of lines of code, not all of them come from Google, right?
That would requiere convincing the copyright holders of those lines, or at least rewrite them. The latter I don’t see it impossible, but it would take time.
Still, I will always rather a strong copyleft license…
They’ll just do an Apple and publish the source to the bits they have to while keeping the bits they don’t closed source making the os as a whole closed source.
Doesn’t matter for a distribution, Apple historically also shipped some gpl tools like bash and Samba, they just provide the source for what they have to.
This is the reason why I’m not a fan of permissive licenses.
If Google is the sole copyright holder, a copyleft license would change nothing because they still have the option to change the license going forward.
That is actually a fair point, but I assume out of the millions of lines of code, not all of them come from Google, right?
That would requiere convincing the copyright holders of those lines, or at least rewrite them. The latter I don’t see it impossible, but it would take time.
Still, I will always rather a strong copyleft license…
They’ll just do an Apple and publish the source to the bits they have to while keeping the bits they don’t closed source making the os as a whole closed source.
I don’t understand.
also I thought Apple builds upon BSD style licensed stuff, while Android is on Linux which is gpl?
Doesn’t matter for a distribution, Apple historically also shipped some gpl tools like bash and Samba, they just provide the source for what they have to.
So, basically what they’re already starting to do?