Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
BLACK FRIDAY DEAL: Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom--A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at $48 with coupon code "BFRIDAY20" ×
Android Operating Systems Programming Technology

Petition Asks the Developers of Phoenix OS to Open Source the Kernel (xda-developers.com) 34

An anonymous reader shares a report: Android is mainly considered an open source mobile operating system, but there are a number of closed source elements that hundreds of millions of people use every day. The actual requirements of Android is that the kernel be open sourced for the public. This is enforced by the GPL but sadly this is one of those gray areas where someone actually needs to take legal action to enforce it. Some companies have violated this time and time again, and a new petition is calling for the developers of Phoenix OS to do the right thing. For those who are unaware, Phoenix OS is one of the only full desktop versions of Android that is still being maintained. [...] So a dedicated fan of the platform, Karol Putra, has created a Change.org petition in hopes that it will change their minds.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Petition Asks the Developers of Phoenix OS to Open Source the Kernel

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    So a dedicated fan of the platform, Karol Putra, has created a Change.org petition in hopes that it will change their minds.

    Because just because an approach has failed 1,000,000 times out of 1,000,000, it doesn't mean that it will fail THIS time!!!

  • UPDATE: It worked! (Score:5, Informative)

    by StreamingEagle ( 1571901 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @03:22PM (#55125507)
    UPDATE: It worked! Phoenix OS is now on Github and kernel source is available. We're still gathering signatures, because we must first verify that the source is legit and not just a copy of Android-x86 with no custom Phoenix OS modifications. We'll let you know when we've verified.
  • ...bringing about the GPL-poison effect no less.... ...(and if that wasn't enough) against an organization based in China?????

    AAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAH AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHHAHAHA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I'm sorry to put it like that, but really, that's a lost cause. OSX has more chances to have its source freed than litigation like this to have an initial hearing. Nonetheless, the petition by itself might be a wake up call to the maintainers of Phoenix OS - who knows, they might just open

    • > ...bringing about the GPL-poison effect no less.... ...(and if that wasn't enough) against an organization based in China?????

      Since they sell the devices in the USA, there would seem to be grounds to bring them to court in the USA if they were violating the GPL.

      And If I may say so, it seems disingenuous to refer to the GPL as a "poison effect". A client recently gave me an excellent simile for it. GPL poisoning your work is like vaccines causing autism. It's a fear that made sense in a scholarly analys

      • Owh, that's nice to hear!

        Actually, I don't consider GPL as poison in the pejorative sense of the word. It's just the word used for its spreading capabilities, since not many licenses force every module of the system they are included to BECOME licensed with the same license as the part. Of course, a much more coherent word would be the likes of virus, epidemic, wildfire, etc (BORG?) - i.e. much worse pejorative semantics. It's just the way it is - you can't have a FTJ where you code proprietary and NOT cons

        • I'll try to explain what I meant.

          Individual users, or companies, consider their proprietary code so important, and the risk to their personal projects, so large that they refuse to use the very carefully thought out and clear GPL licenses. The then endanger others who may accidentally copy parts of their software, or reverse engineer it without intent, or who may copy software which was not clearly distinguished and labeled as GPL. They put others at risk, and companies who collaborate or who privately shar

          • Thank you very much for clearing that up!

            I get it, completely. I was just under a different mindset. So what your client meant was that to actually make your (or your company's) code proprietary (as in ownership) and consequentially not open it up to accidental infringement, is to open-source it with clear disclaimers about distribution and monetizing - basically the poison is your poison - only you get to distribute it with the original "brand of trust". This as long been (from my understanding) the main a

            • I think my keyboard's H key needs some fixing up.

            • The discussion is interesting, but _please_ stop mixing open source with free software. They have different goals, different history, and different licensing. FOSS is not one license, or one model of development. The largest split is between "free software" and "open source software".

              If I may suggest a better model, please review the "tragedy of the commons" and approaches used to prevent it. Companies and individuals have started from "free to use" software, such as BSD UNIX and the openly published parts

      • Oh wait I think I got the simile - he basically meant that it no longer makes sense to consider GPL as "poison" (actually "having a poison effect" is what I stated), because this, as an hypothesis has been proven wrong through the scientific method. What I didn't get is where exactly is that proof. I mean, isn't this article itself proof that GPL is indeed "poison"? Weren't the people actually petitioning that the "poison effect is enforced"?

        No jokes here, I am actually interested in understanding that simi

  • they must have a lot of resources going into this project, (website & OS)

    where is this from? from some of the screenshots it looks like the far east (china?, korea?, japan?), i never heard of this OS before this slashdot article, yeah, i would like to see the source code open too before i slap a copy on a spare laptop. people cant be too careful when it comes to just installing an operating system and letting it on the network, it needs to be checked to make sure nothing malicious is hiding in there
  • Ask the PhoenixOS people to get their heads out of their assholes and come up with an installation mechanism that does not require having Windows already installed.
  • Is this the pinnacle of literacy for y-generation?

Real computer scientists don't program in assembler. They don't write in anything less portable than a number two pencil.

Working...