Linked by AcacioMartins on Wed 6th Apr 2011 22:13 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source In a recent article Thom contributed his opinion to the discussion about the openness of Android that started when Google choose to withhold the source code for honeycomb, here are my 2 cents. In the article the obligations GPL puts on Google are made very clear. This makes it clear that Android is indeed an open-source project. However being open-source and being open aren't always the same thing.
Permalink for comment 469377
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

OpenBSD is released under a BSD license and hence it is "open source", but you can not take their code, do as you please with it and then release it under the same name without their permission. They will come after you for trademark violations.

Linus Torvald, owns the trademark to a name "linux". You can take linux source code, do as you please with it and release it under the terms of the GPL without asking anybody for permission but Linus will come after you if you release your code with a name "linux" without his permission.

You can take BSD, GPL code and do what you please with it and release it without asking anybody for permission as long as you abide by the rules of the license but you have to ask for permission if you want to use the project's trademarked names.

FOSS licenses has nothing to do with trademarked names.

Google is just saying "Here is the code(when they release it), you can do as you please with it but you must follow our terms if you want to use our trademarked names"

Mozilla did the same thing when they forced debian to change their browser name from "firefox" to "iceweasel"

Google putting requirements on how their trademarked names are to be used falls outside FOSS requiremets.

Reply Score: 0