Can someone with more context explain what this means and maybe the background?
josephcsible•1h ago
Android 16 QPR1 rolled out in binary-only form to phones that are blessed by Google over two months ago, and it's only just now that they bothered to actually release the source of their open-source operating system.
bitpush•1h ago
> it's only just now that they bothered to actually release the source of their open-source operating system.
Do you really need to have snark for an open source project?
pseudosavant•1h ago
I thought we were talking about the Android project? /sarcasm
wongogue•1h ago
A project which uses and depends on a lot of other third-party OSS? Maybe.
josephcsible•32m ago
Open-source projects maintained by individual developers working for free absolutely deserve more respect than that, but ones maintained by the most profitable company in the world [1] do not, especially when they go out of their way to change from doing the right thing to doing the wrong thing [2].
It's Google, I think they've sucked up enough of our digital lives and economy to handle a bit of snark.
MarsIronPI•15m ago
Yes. Precisely because it's "open source", not "free".
o11c•40m ago
And it is very important to remember: being able to do this is the reason why companies have brainwashed the Internet into choosing the MIT license for everything.
With GPL-only code, the world would be much nicer for all of us.
semi-extrinsic•13m ago
Some of the reason why the MIT license etc. is more popular surely has to do with the license text itself. I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license. With the GPL, not so much. It's verbose and complex and has different versions.
Would it really be impossible to have a license with similar brevity as MIT but similar consequences as GPL?
joecool1029•1h ago
This means the source code is finally being released for the quarterly release that came out in september. Roms like lineageos had to target QPR0 which came out back in June but can now bring up to this. Google used to release the source to AOSP right after the releases happened, now they don't.
gpm•38m ago
Additional context per fediverse thread: The GPL code (i.e. kernel) was released on time, this is the AOSP userspace portions which Google isn't legally obligated to release (which doesn't make it not a dick move not to).
What's the current status of custom ROM development these days!! I hv been out of the sync for a while. It seems mostly dead except for few players like LOS, Graphene, Paranoid (prolly), I guess there are still some smaller enthusiasts, but they probably just kang old code and features rather than providing stable support.
kamranjon•1h ago
josephcsible•1h ago
bitpush•1h ago
Do you really need to have snark for an open source project?
pseudosavant•1h ago
wongogue•1h ago
josephcsible•32m ago
[1]: https://www.financecharts.com/screener/most-profitable
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484927
ehnto•30m ago
MarsIronPI•15m ago
o11c•40m ago
With GPL-only code, the world would be much nicer for all of us.
semi-extrinsic•13m ago
Would it really be impossible to have a license with similar brevity as MIT but similar consequences as GPL?
joecool1029•1h ago
gpm•38m ago