> Yeah but we're not talking about less restrictive licenses, we're talking about linux and the gpl and the fact that zero of the changes from android have made it back upstream into the kernel.
Sure they have. The kernel developers deemed most of the changes unsuitable for upstream. That's a shame, but it's their prerogative to reject the changes, and Google's prerogative to still want to do things their way.
> Dirk Hohndel from MeeGo made a good point at OSCON this year that open source is not just about releasing patches to code you changed, but oepn source is about engaging with the upstream projects that you're using...
So now some guy who I've never heard of has an opinion on what open source "is," and that's canonical? I don't think so, and I don't agree (as an open source developer-in-hiatus myself).
Open source is whatever you damn well care to make of it (as long as you're honoring the relevant licenses). That's why it's so awesome.
Sure they have. The kernel developers deemed most of the changes unsuitable for upstream. That's a shame, but it's their prerogative to reject the changes, and Google's prerogative to still want to do things their way.
> Dirk Hohndel from MeeGo made a good point at OSCON this year that open source is not just about releasing patches to code you changed, but oepn source is about engaging with the upstream projects that you're using...
So now some guy who I've never heard of has an opinion on what open source "is," and that's canonical? I don't think so, and I don't agree (as an open source developer-in-hiatus myself).
Open source is whatever you damn well care to make of it (as long as you're honoring the relevant licenses). That's why it's so awesome.