Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 03:31:27AM +0000, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Since when do people have to provide the source code for Android apps????
In this case, because Tetrafile (of which I'm the author) is
released under the GPL. Which means that if you provide a binary
for any platform, you have to provide the sources as required for
that platform.
I am/was aware that Tetrafile is published under GPL license.
But it depends maybe also how Tetrafile is included into the program?
(Cos Dalvik-VM/Java and Android development tools are Apache license.)
P.S.: But if you insist so much in "legal"/license stuff, you gave
just the perfect argument why certain companies don't want to put a
standard Linux onto a smart phone. Unintended, very probably...
That doesn't seem to make much sense. It's perfectly possible to write
closed-source apps for Linux. What you can't do is take someone else's
GPL-ed code and use it as if you owned it.
See above. If you argument above is correct, things get quite difficult,
because typical Linux toolkit licenses are GPL. (So and according to the
argument above, you can't "separate" your code into GPLed and "other
license"/closed sections. Even if you try hard to do so.)
Best,
Stefan
P.S.: In fact Android does this, if I remember well. One part is
obviously GPL, speaking of the Linux base. There are parts of the
Android OS - not just the non-OS parts - which are published under
Apache license.
So?!
P.S. 2: I was specifically disturbed by the the fact that Hector was not
"asked" to publish his code. It sounded like a threat. Appropiate,
especially in this case?
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
