Google replaced Git tags for certain source code with obtaining via Google Drive
GrapheneOS claims Google is violating GPLv2 by replacing Git tags with Google Drive and forms for certain source code distribution, arguing it's not a "customarily used medium." This move sparks a contentious debate on HN about whether it's a true license violation or merely inconvenient "malicious compliance." The discussion highlights the tension between strict license interpretation and the spirit of open-source development.
The Lowdown
A recent post by GrapheneOS on Mastodon ignited a discussion about Google's alleged change in how it distributes certain GPL-licensed source code for Android components. Historically, Google provided access via Git tags, but GrapheneOS asserts that this has been replaced with a process involving requests through Google Forms, followed by distribution via Google Drive. GrapheneOS argues that this new method is in "clear violation of the GPLv2," particularly because Google Drive may not constitute a "medium customarily used for software interchange" and that the request fulfillment process is excessively slow.
- Google has reportedly shifted from providing source code via Git tags to a request-based system using Google Forms, with files distributed via Google Drive.
- GrapheneOS believes this new method contravenes the GPLv2, which mandates specific, accessible means of source code distribution.
- A key point of contention is whether Google Drive qualifies as a "medium customarily used for software interchange" under GPLv2's terms.
- GrapheneOS also criticized the new process for being "very slow" in handling source code requests, further impeding access.
This situation raises questions about Google's commitment to open-source principles and whether its current distribution practices meet the legal and practical requirements of licenses like the GPLv2.
The Gossip
GPL Grievance or Google's Gray Area?
The primary debate revolved around whether Google's new source code distribution method actually constitutes a GPLv2 violation. Many commenters argued that while inconvenient or a form of 'malicious compliance,' it doesn't strictly breach the license's wording, which allows for various distribution methods, including physical media with a fee. Others maintained that it goes against the spirit of open source, even if technically compliant, by making access more difficult.
Clarity Quest for Code Particulars
Commenters expressed a strong desire for more specific details regarding the alleged changes. Questions arose about which 'certain source code' components were affected, how 'slow' the new process truly is, and the exact timing of these policy shifts. The discussion also delved into the historical context of Android's open-source nature, with some asserting it's always been 'source-open' rather than purely 'open source,' while others pointed out significant contributions to Android that are not Google's own, such as OpenJDK.