Hacker News Reader

Comment by pas | Hacker News Reader

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, [...]")

View on HN

Google became one of those OEMs that drag their feet and make it a hassle to publish the source code. This happens because they are not interested in open source Android anymore

Spirit of the law vs Letter of the law argument. Which ever side of the coin you stand on.

Alas, the licences have become outdated and we haven't kept up, because most have played by the spirit of the rules up to this point. There is an expectation that source code will be readily available using modern tooling, like a version control system, but that's not what the licences actually require.

GPL requires that source code be in the preferred form for making modifications. If you use source control for your own modifications, then that's obviously the preferred form and you must distribute the source in that form.

That’s an ambitious interpretation. The preferred form for making modifications to the Linux kernel also involves having a build cache, but that’s clearly not required to remain GPL compliant.

I hate to be that guy but publishing source online for free theoretically involves unbounded distribution costs that can't be recovered. That isn't the issue here but it should be considered before changing a license.

Google has servers inside ISP networks that distribute YouTube videos. They pay nothing for the distribution costs, I think they don’t even pay for electricity/cooling. If they wanted to distribute Android source code, they wouldn’t have to pay a dime.

Regardless of whether these costs are zero (I doubt they actually are), these licenses apply to EVERYONE who uses them, not just very wealthy companies. It would not be right to essentially require unbounded free hosting or use of specific online tools/platforms, just to be able to comply with the license.

Let not forget that google heavily relies on opensource software. The Linux kernel being the obvious one in this discussion, which they make extensive use of.

So? The license is for everyone, not just Google.

It doesn't if you use a better theory

Google is worth what, a trillion dollars?

It's a generic license that doesn't say "by the way, if you've got a market cap above X then you have to host and distribute the code FOR FREE"... Putting such garbage in there would hurt small developers who made popular, nonprofit projects and probably anyone who isn't flush with cash. Imagine being legally obligated to host files in the middle of a DDoS attack, and pay the resulting AWS bill or whatever.

Google literally has infinite money.

Infinite money in the pursuit of profit or an ego trip of an exec. No money for the benefit of community or society.

"Society" (whomever that is) uses Google services constantly, to society's constant benefit.

It seems the main benefit goes to Google.

Not from my perspective. I get free mapping anywhere on earth, with traffic information, and can route plan walking, cycling, driving, or public/private transport and likely journey times. I can search the world's web-published information. I'm using a powerful, relatively affordable mobile phone. I can watch anything anyone with a camera uploads to YouTube across the world. I can pay from my phone with a thumbprint verification only. I can take a photo of something and get back what it is and some information about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com