TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Bradley Kuhn: Questioning The Original Analysis On The Bionic Debate

16 点作者 biehl大约 14 年前

4 条评论

FlorianMueller大约 14 年前
Brad Kuhn has an interesting take on modifying large codebases: "If someone actually does all the research to prove that Google did, I'd easily offer a 1,000-to-1 bet to anyone that such a copyright infringement could be cleared up easily [...]"<p>I've been in the software industry for more than two decades, and I've worked with such companies as Blizzard Entertainment (I actually edited a small part of the C source code of Warcraft II - Tides of Darkness, for an example). I know and I'm sure pretty much every reader here knows that it's <i>never</i> just a quick and simple thing to change something in such a large and interwoven codebase as Android.<p>Any change can result in unforeseeable run-time issues even in parts of the codebase where it seems counterintuitive.<p>I don't deny that it's doable -- in my own blog post on this I advocate replacing Bionic with glibc. I don't claim it will take five years. But the idea that this can be done in no time and without any risk of incompatibilities and other issues flies in the face of everything any technical decision-maker at any significant software company would say.<p>It may work in a "release early, release often" world. I doubt that the likes of Samsung and Motorola plan to "release early, release often" their Android-based devices.<p>Such an absurd downplaying of the issue calls into question that Brad Kuhn seriously wants a solution. It seems he just wants to be an apologist.
FlorianMueller大约 14 年前
Brad Kuhn says: "Google wasn't seeking to circumvent the GPL at all." That's wrong. Not only did Google throw out numerous GPL notices from the original headers, but it explicitly stated in the context of Bionic its goal to "keep [the] GPL out of user-space" on page 36 of this official presentation: <a href="http://androidteam.googlecode.com/files/Anatomy-Physiology-of-an-Android.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://androidteam.googlecode.com/files/Anatomy-Physiology-o...</a><p>I already pointed to that from my blog post on the Bionic story (<a href="http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/googles-android-faces-serious-linux.html" rel="nofollow">http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/googles-android-face...</a>) but just wanted to show this example of a definitive error in Kuhn's generally very unconvincing blog post.
评论 #2346609 未加载
FlorianMueller大约 14 年前
Brad Kuhn writes: "But, to deny that it's possible to rewrite a C library for Linux under a license that isn't GPLv2 would also imply immediately the (incorrect) conclusion that [...]"<p>This is pointless and may mislead some readers.<p>Without a doubt it's <i>possible</i> to do a non-GPL library. In fact, my blog post on this subject advocated glibc all the way, which is LGPL'd, not GPL'd.<p>But the fact that it's possible (if done right) doesn't mean that Google's reprocessing and repurposing of the material in question is in line with copyright law and the GPL.
rbanffy大约 14 年前
I never had a second thought on what would LGPL compliance be and why it would be an advantage to developers have a BSD-style library instead of an LGPL one.<p>Any license-lawyer wants to elaborate on that?
评论 #2347325 未加载