Still need to pick a non-commercial usage license for nougat-release. Any external contributions will use the normal Android licensing.
Are they actually following GPL terms strictly? If not, what makes you think they'd refrain from other © infringement?
-
-
It's hard to know if they are. These companies are using Nexus devices and might not be making changes to the same components.
-
So the only thing GPL3 would require from them is probably just not shipping a device manager preventing bootloader unlocking.
-
But... it might not even be a violation if the phone owner is able to unlock but the user cannot do it. It's too complicated.
-
FOSS community wasn't contributing to CopperheadOS or using the code (other than via AOSP), so no one is really losing anything.
-
It's the end result rejection by OTF, not having any contributors, users buying their own phones, not many donations, etc.
-
Re own phones, it'd cost >50% more for preload (also ship$ & delay+risk). Wonder if volume at lower $ wld b better
-
Ship delay's hard to avoid (I needed to replace another device), but many users less likely to don8 after purchase
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If no and your answer is "but then we can sue", can't you already sue?
-
If it's 100% clear that they need to pay us, we don't think they'll take the sources and then explicitly break the license.
-
This is how modern GPL works. It's an incentive to buy the commercial license so you don't have to deal with pain of GPL.
-
They have no reason not to comply with the GPL if they aren't doing their own hardening, etc. though. They are just rebranding.
-
GPL would work if the companies wanting to use the code were vendors like LG, Samsung, Huawei, etc. but it's not those vendors.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.