That’s not what’s implied at all. Please don’t spread misinformation
Comment on Google will develop the Android OS fully in private; Will continue open source releases.
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 4 weeks ago
To summarize the article: they will deliberately open-source any updates several years later, or whenever they feel like, to ensure Stock Android is the only OS you use and new features available for people who pay Google money, which also includes security updates.
azalty@jlai.lu 4 weeks ago
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Look at the FUD getting voted to the top. This place is just as bad as Reddit.
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 4 weeks ago
Please elaborate your nonsense comment.
Tja@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
I also choose this guy’s wife.
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 4 weeks ago
Fuck you for assuming I’m straight
ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Well now I hate turtles and I hope the Americans bomb them. Thank you for that.
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 4 weeks ago
🐢😢
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 4 weeks ago
This is not at all a summary of the article. They’re moving to trunk-based dev to reduce merge conflicts coming in from the public on AOSP.
I don’t like it, because those few devs who contribute to AOSP without an agreement currently will have lagging code, but what you describe is just plain wrong. Is it possible? Sure. But it always has been, that doesn’t mean that’s what is happening.
Crashumbc@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Is it possible? Yes Is it likely given Corpo take over of civilization? Also yes…
Patch@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
Even then, not really. Not legally, anyway. Open source licences require that the user be provided with the source code (if requested) alongside the binaries. If they roll out an update to Android (to code which is under an open source licence), they have to release the code at essentially the same time. Rolling out an update and then withholding the source code for an unnecessarily long time would be against the terms of the licence.
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 4 weeks ago
It’s an Apache license with a contributor agreement. At any point they could close source. People could fork from it at that point, but any new features/updates/breaking changed from then out would be behind the scenes. There’s no GPL poison pill in this one, I’m afraid.
Patch@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
For as long as it’s still under the Apache licence, they’re still obligated to release the source under the terms of that licence. They’d need to change the licence to stop providing code; which as you say, they could do, but that would also kill AOSP entirely overnight so is a bit of a bigger problem than the one described in the OP.
pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Good clarification It’s also worth clarifying that choosing hidden trunk based development instead of public truck based development makes it clear that community contributions aren’t one of their priorities.
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 4 weeks ago
Ahhh yes very very true. Also a great addition.