Android 16 QPR1 rolled out in binary-only form to phones that are blessed by Google over two months ago, and it's only just now that they bothered to actually release the source of their open-source operating system.
And it is very important to remember: being able to do this is the reason why companies have brainwashed the Internet into choosing the MIT license for everything.
With GPL-only code, the world would be much nicer for all of us.
Nobody needed to "brainwash" me into choosing the MIT license for my projects. I choose it because I disagree with the philosophy of the GPL, and think that true freedom requires the freedom for others to make their own licensing choices. You are quite welcome to disagree with that stance, but please cut out the inflammatory language. It's not charitable towards others and it isn't healthy for good discussion.
This is probably the biggest and most successful example of utilizing non-permissive open source licensing for the public good - I’m curious why so many places I’ve worked have insisted on avoiding using libraries with GPL licenses in favor of MIT licensed projects, while at the same time hosting all of their services on different flavors of Linux.
It definitely seems like MIT is favored by big corps but at the end of the day, they’ll use GPL licensed code if it’s the best option. Which makes me wonder why it’s so demonized.
Compatibility with proprietary dependencies that the company cannot control. If I'm not mistaken, GPL requires the release of the dependencies' source code too if there are no other implementations around.
I would be happy to hear from anyone who knows about this subject if what I'm saying is correct.
It depended on whether the programs were distributed together. So it wasn't okay to link against OpenSSL for GNU/Linux distributions (although interpretations varied). For a time, this was used to push GNUTLS as an alternative to OpenSSL. But it was generally agreed upon that it was okay to link against CryptoAPI on Windows because you would not distribute Windows code along with your GPL binaries.
> I’m curious why so many places I’ve worked have insisted on avoiding using libraries with GPL licenses in favor of MIT licensed projects
Because failing to manage their GPL obligations led to a lawsuit for D-Link followed by a compulsion to release a lot more code than they ever planned to share online, to the company's detriment.
You can pretty much look at the stock value before and after they lost the lawsuit. There was, notably, a big value spike immediately after, but the value then settled down to an average of around 15 a share, markedly below their previous 30 a share.
For some companies, the value is in the proprietary content and using GPL would be shooting themselves in the foot.
I think that a lot of companies stepped back from the GPL when GPLv3 was announced, because it puts some pretty severe restrictions on how you can productize.
The tl;dr is that for any GPLv3 software that you ship, you have to also give your users a way to install a modified copy. If you're trying to ship a secured product, that basically means that you have to give code/rootfs signing keys to your customers. This is a non-starter for many kinds of products that need tamper protection (whether for product, legal, or safety reasons).
The Linux kernel remains on GPLv2, and is still used quite heavily. Most GNU software (coreutils, gcc, etc) moved to GPLv3 and then commercial companies abandoned them in favor of permissively-licensed replacements.
> If you're trying to ship a secured product, that basically means that you have to give code/rootfs signing keys to your customers. This is a non-starter for many kinds of products that need tamper protection (whether for product, legal, or safety reasons).
Fuck that. If it's my device then I want to have control. If I want to violate part 15 of the FCC rules then I'm going to do it and nobody is going to stop me. This paternalistic rubbish has to stop, I'm sure your company would love to retain ultimate control of the thing you've sold me, but that's not compatible with a free society.
"remote"? No. I want my driver-assistance ECU to be air-gapped but fully reprogrammable locally. After all, even with a totally tivoized ECU, a physically present attacker could still make my car kill me by cutting my brake lines.
> while at the same time hosting all of their services on different flavors of Linux.
That linux uses GPL is entirely irrelevant to the vast majority of uses of it. What hosting services are customizing their kernels with proprietary code?
See also, FreeBSD: Plenty of commercial offerings around it, no source for most of them, because the license doesn't require it. For example, there's no source for the Playstation kernels/userlands released by Sony. They only upstream some bug fixes that would be too onerous to keep in their private fork.
In order to build a custom Rom, you need three things: the kernel tree, the device tree, and the binary blobs.
The binary blobs can be extracted from a running phone.
The kernel tree is GPL-licensed, so almost all phones have kernel trees releases, and if they don't you can ask the manufacturer for it.
The device tree on the other hand, is created from scratch for each phone. As such, there is no pre-existing license, and therefore no legal obligation to release device tree sources, so almost no manufacturer does. The only notable exception is Google with their Nexus and Pixel phones. (But this has stopped since with the Android 16 release)
We can safely assume that the manufacturers that don't release the device trees, wouldn't have released kernel trees if they weren't obliged to.
But adding support for a device to the Linux Kernel requires _huge_ reverse-engineering efforts. This is why there's still no fully functional Android build for iPhones.
Some have "interoperability exceptions" - so if you have been granted a license to something, you can reuse it in different context (so for instance you could run Microsoft Office on WINE even if Microsoft's license forbids it).
Some have restrictions on redistribution (but the builds just using the blobs from the old filesystem are fine).
A lot of that is in the gray area, and for that very reason many builds don't actually redistribute blobs - they extract and reuse them live.
Not at all. We have a lot of experience with this with such licenses and other software. BSD as just one example. Not only do we have a pile of emperical evidence, it's also a priori obvious: they're not going to expend any effort or take any risk if its not neccessary. They can just benefit without paying.
Easy see the upstream contributions from any commercial vendor that has integrated BSD into their UNIX flavours, or the alternatives that exist nowadays for embedded FOSS operating systems, none of them GPL.
> I can get the source of the kernel, including all drivers, running on my android phone with a few clicks and build a custom ROM.
No, most drivers are closed source and you can just extract binary blobs for them. They run as daemons that communicate through the binder ipc - Android basically turned the Linux kernel into a microkernel.
It's the tolerance against intolerance paradox, basically. The freedom to take away freedom. I'm leaning towards not giving that freedom, but it's complicated.
A good example of that is Apple moving from bash to zsh, because bash moved to GPL 3 which prevents locking down devives. It was very specifically because they wanted the freedom to take away their users' freedom.
I will say here something I have said and has proved unpopular before. The complexity is mainly something of scale. I would propose more permissive MIT style licensing for small companies, and something stricter for larger companies. It is hard to enforce (which was the main complaint I got), but it's not impossible and I think it is better than the current state of affairs.
Large companies will self-enforce, as they already do with GPL and "open" LLMs that are dual licensed by company size. Small companies don't care either way and are hard to enforce, so that works.
Any pointers to open/closed vendors and projects which use this kind of honor system?
EU CRA has "commercial use" definitions to differentiate OSS contributors and OSS consumers.
Not that I know of, but there are many subscription services that are based on institutional size / income, and they are more often than not self-certifying.
Despite anyone's personal views, it's undeniable that corps favour a Free they can use as they wish. It's also fairly evident that they make this favour known through their culture. Brainwashing may be a bit far, but only just.
All for naught, I fear, while LLMs consume all and regurgitate license-free to vibe-coders everywhere.
Then you care about a different kind of freedom than GPL proponents: licensing freedom, rather than user freedom, basically. There is no 'true freedom', as it comes down to the point of view; no licence will give you both at the same time.
User freedom isn't really that though. It's corporate goodwill. If a company uses GPL code and doesn't release it what is the enforcement mechanism? A lengthy court proceeding that can go either way and will likely bankrupt the less wealthy party. Or if they are in another country they can tell you to piss off and you have no way of getting the code. We see this all the time with China. In essence, they are the same but one allows you ask nicely and hope that the corporation is feeling generous.
This is an example of a "When did you stop beating your wife" question. It assumes only "true freedom" can stem from a license other than the MIT one without any attempt to arrive at the conclusion that the MIT license doesn't reflect "true freedom."
> You are quite welcome to disagree with that stance, but please cut out the inflammatory language. It's not charitable towards others and it isn't healthy for good discussion.
It is no more inflammatory than the coordinated war that was waged against copyleft licenses on tech fora and social media for more than a decade before hackers started to realize en masse that it was all a ploy to extract free labor from them. There are legitimate uses for permissive licenses and I still use them for those. But the big players certainly pushed them well beyond those cases where they made any sense. More than enough evidence has since emerged that prove this to be the case.
It does no one any favors to deny the presence of bad actors and their malintent behind the utter mess we find ourselves in right now. I find it disturbing that whenever people express their frustration regarding this, there are attempts to shoot them down with accusations of inflammatory language, political correctness, etc. But the truth is that the big players have caused far far more damage than any inflammatory citicism they face for it now. What's actually unhealthy for good discussion is the dystopian censorship of criticisms because the truth make some people uncomfortable. Every bit of harsh criticism they receive here is something they willfully and rightfully earned.
> hackers started to realize en masse that it was all a ploy to extract free labor from them.
There are at least three different groups of people here:
1. Those paid to write permissively licensed software - not free labour.
2. Those who are happy to be free labour. I read a comment by a BSD developer about being very proud and happy to be able to buy a games console that ran on a BSD derived OS.
3. Naive people who are are shocked when someone creates a proprietary fork of their code. It is something that they explicitly gave everyone permission to do, and it is something that has been happening for decades - I can think of Windows using BSD network code in the early 90s, but there are probably much earlier examples. Apple's OSes are very high profile examples since 2001, and Nextstep before that.
The last group have themselves to blame. Did they not take the trouble to understand a legal document? Do they know nothing about the history of their industry? Do they takes steps to stop it - for example by doing releasing updates under a copyleft license?
I agree with you that big players do push licenses that suite themselves, but it relies on either deliberate choice or foolishness by contributors for it to work. I also think copyleft is usually of greater benefit to society.
People being naive doesn't give the bad actors the right to exploit them. That's victim blaming. The responsibility falls squarely on the actors who actively made the unethical/immoral choice.
> What's actually unhealthy for good discussion is the dystopian censorship of criticisms because the truth make some people uncomfortable
I think you're missing the point.
There are developers who prefer MIT not because they're a "big player" or "because truth make people uncomfortable", people simply have different preference for what the ideal license is for their project.
If you cannot deal with that, that sounds like a you problem, but judging by your comments, you're not exactly gonna re-evaluate with a different perspective, since you seem unable to understand others have different ideas and opinions than you.
Others having different ideas and opinions doesn't mean that those ideas and opinions are correct, or that they are beneficial. They might be detrimental to the FOSS movement or to society in general.
So "to each their own" only goes so far.
One can very well accept that other devs/teams have different ideas and opinions && that they can (by law) have such ideas and opinions, but also think that they have them for the wrong reasons, and that they shouldn't have them, and that we'd all be better off if they didn't.
> There are legitimate uses for permissive licenses and I still use them for those.
The parent didn't talk about forcing developers to choose copyleft.
And you ignored the stated legitimate reasons for choosing copyleft in most cases if you care about the society.
> There are developers who prefer MIT not because they're a "big player" or "because truth make people uncomfortable", people simply have different preference for what the ideal license is for their project.
Did you miss this part in my comment?:
> There are legitimate uses for permissive licenses and I still use them for those.
Or this part from GP's comment?:
> being able to do this is the reason why companies have brainwashed the Internet into ...
Or this part?:
> ... choosing the MIT license for everything
(emphasis mine) All of these imply that the companies did a mass campaign and not individual brainwashing. They also imply that the MIT license is not suitable for everything and by corollary that there are instances where they do apply. All of it are aimed at the companies that resorted to these underhanded tactics. Where does any of these imply that every single use of the MIT license is due to brainwashing? I can't understand how anyone concludes instead that it's all a personal attack on MIT license users (that includes me too).
> If you cannot deal with that, that sounds like a you problem, but judging by your comments, you're not exactly gonna re-evaluate with a different perspective, since you seem unable to understand others have different ideas and opinions than you.
Not only does one have to deal with people reinterpreting others' comments according to their convenience, they also have to withstand guilt tripping based on it. And the irony is that you cite my complaint about the same issue for it!
Agree 100%. I gave up on the GPL before I even knew what exactly it was about because of the zealotry of many of its proponents. I would even go as far as saying that without the FSF, GPL-like licenses would be much more common.
Any half-decent person is going to keep on breathing. It's one of the basic prerequisites of bringing some value to society. Not breathing is selfish and completely misses the point of life. If you're going to exist, then breathe; it's really as simple as that.
You may disagree with the overly-derogatory term "brainwash", but I think it is true that corporations have been spreading FUD around coopyleft licenses for a while now, and the balance has tilted toward permissive licenses for new projects.
ideally -- without a legal system using force to stop people using knowledge (IP laws), -- i would be on your position. in fact, i used to agree with you.
but in the current reality around us, i believe it's a more nuanced issue.
Some of the reason why the MIT license etc. is more popular surely has to do with the license text itself. I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license. With the GPL, not so much. It's verbose and complex and has different versions.
Would it really be impossible to have a license with similar brevity as MIT but similar consequences as GPL?
Brevity maybe, but ease of understanding no. Copyleft licenses interact with copyright law in ways that permissive licences just don't need to. The closest you can get is probably MPL-2.0.
The GPL is particularly bad here as it pretends to define what is or isn't a derivative work, which is outside the scope of a licence but within the scope of a court. The EUPL was created partly because EU directives bound the viral clause in ways the FSF won't admit to, although that one isn't simple either (I'm not a fan of its compatibility clause).
No, the MIT license is short exactly because it has so little restrictions. You simply can't encode the desired result of GPL into 160 words like MIT can.
> I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license.
Sounds like you need a better lawyer.
The consequences of the GPL are not all that complicated. In most cases it boils down to offering the source if you distribute the code outside your organisation.
Therein lies the problem. When dealing with the law, you don't want to be relatively sure that you won't go to prison or won't get sued for $1M, you want to be completely sure.
Something like the GPL is complex and non-standard as far as its interactions with the legal system go, because it is essentially a sort of hack of copyright law. If it goes before a court, you have no idea what might potentially happen. So rather than deal with that kind of complexity and uncertainty, you'd use something under MIT or Apache License that is just much better understood.
> Therein lies the problem. When dealing with the law, you don't want to be relatively sure that you won't go to prison or won't get sued for $1M, you want to be completely sure.
Not really. Unless you are redistributing it does not affect you at all.
> Something like the GPL is complex and non-standard as far as its interactions with the legal system go
it is widely used, and most people are running some copyleft software anyway, most commonly GPL or a variant such as LGPL. Linux servers, Android phones, routers, web browsers....
Say you have linked against a GPL'd dependency which you have not modified but for which there is no API-compatible substitute. Are you now bound by the terms of the GPL? FSF says "yes", which tends to surprise people. But if there is an API-compatible, non-GPL'd substitute, the answer arguably becomes "no". Note that this has nothing to do either with your work or with your direct dependency, but on the existence of some random artifact out in the ecosystem which may come into existence at any point in the timeline.
There are whole industries built around the notion that “License: MIT” is everything that is required to meet the notification requirements in the license. So I wouldn't say that the MIT license is easy to understand.
> I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license. With the GPL, not so much.
Any IP lawyer who hasn't come across the GPL yet is probably not worth listening to.
I mean, would you listen to a bridge engineer who hasn't yet heard of a calculator? Sure, they may understand their shit, but if they haven't heard of calculators yet they are clearly not in the industry.
Any IP lawyer who hasn't yet read the GPL and formed a professional opinion on it isn't equipped to handle IP matters at all.
Right, I think people misunderstand "free" when they are dominating versus "free" when they are the smaller player. One is a tool for domination and capture, the other is a tool for freedom ESPECIALLY against a bigger player.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by laziness.
Personally, I MIT/BSD my stuff because, well... it means I don't have to think about it ever again. If I do GPL, I have to make sure that I'm following the rules set out in that license and making sure others who have based their code on my project have done the same.
And that's, like, work, man, especially if you don't have a foundation and legal eagles on your side to double-check that everything's kosher.
Linux is an exception, not a rule, in how GPL is usually handled in FLOSS projects.
>If I do GPL, I have to make sure that I'm following the rules set out in that license
If its all your own stuff you don't really have to care about the license. Otherwise the rules are pretty simple, include a GPL license and if requested by a user supply the source code (which you can even charge some money for).
>and making sure others who have based their code on my project have done the same.
If you don't care what others do with it, you don't have to enforce it.
As the sole copyright holder (A)GPL only gives you more options.
There's no difference for you. It's your code. Choosing a particular license can't restrict how you yourself use it. An absurdly common business model is for you to relicense to BSD/MIT/proprietary for a particular customer who pays you to; it's the same code, you're just not obligating that customer to share their changes if they redistribute it.
The GPL is a statement you're making about the rights that other people are granted when it comes to your code. It's not a personal pledge. Exactly like every other license btw; they aren't oaths. You're also not required to police or sue people who break your license. It's your code.
That's just it, though. If it doesn't carry any sort of possibility of being enforced, well... why bother? I could just go with the easier-to-understand license, like someone upthread mentioned.
If we're going to see the promised tech ecosystem that GPL's authors aimed to provide, we're going to need more people to take it seriously. Most people don't want to take it seriously, and if that's the case, we're better off if they just went with MIT/BSD.
I mostly agree, unless the new release modifies GPL code submitted by other entities than Google - their licensing of that code under GPL would force Google to release the rest too.
Open-source projects maintained by individual developers working for free absolutely deserve more respect than that, but ones maintained by the most profitable company in the world [1] do not, especially when they go out of their way to change from doing the right thing to doing the wrong thing [2].
> ..., especially when they go out of their way to change from doing the right thing to doing the wrong thing.
And let's not forget this part. Android is a member of the mobile platform duopoly. Another similar project - Chrome - is almost a monopoly among web platforms. Both these projects exploit the open source label and most people's false belief that open source somehow equates to respect and protection of user rights. (Philosophically, it's only free software that cares about user rights. Both projects are textbook examples of non-free open source software.) This actually protects these projects to some extend from criticisms and penalties against the dark patterns that they employ to corrupt and exploit both the mobile and the web ecosystems. They absolutely don't deserve the same considerations as the passionate and underpaid small teams or individual maintainers.
Being more constructive, the future isn't looking bright for freedom of choice in mobile OSes, as governments and banks enforce use of approved apps on approved devices for identification and banking. Without one of either an Android or an iPhone, things get difficult. My government for example can consider a phone running something like GrapheneOS a Criminal Device.
Android is the most open of the two, being open source, so it would be nice if it stayed that way.
Applying your argument more broadly, we shouldn't critique any product or changes made to it, and I don't see any reason why that should be true.
Caring about the products you use is pretty standard behaviour, and when the product changes under the user's hands, it's normal to complain. It can resolve the issue faster and less painfully than switching products would.
The fact of the matter is that Android is fully funded and developed by Google and you kinda don't have much standing to control what they do with their project and how - especially if all you can say is that their work is bad.
You can be unhappy about it, but it doesn't change that its their work and their money on the line here with very little relationship to you or your wishes. You're not even a paying customer.
This doesn't apply to "any product or changes" at large.
You said we can be unhappy, which is what the grandparent was being, but you took issue with that anyway. I imagine people in deep enough to care about the downstream release cycle of android are well aware of the power structures at play. Being under the thumb of a massive corporate is not an enviable position but here we are, and here we complain.
It's not the same lol
I become a paying customer of Samsung and Google because Samsung paid for it (you have to pay for your device to be verified and access Google Play Services) and some of the cost is absorbed by me
I don't become a PAYING customer of Linus because Thinkpad didn't pay for Ubuntu (and if anything was paid I would become a customer of Canonical)
This means the source code is finally being released for the quarterly release that came out in september. Roms like lineageos had to target QPR0 which came out back in June but can now bring up to this. Google used to release the source to AOSP right after the releases happened, now they don't.
Additional context per fediverse thread: The GPL code (i.e. kernel) was released on time, this is the AOSP userspace portions which Google isn't legally obligated to release (which doesn't make it not a dick move not to).
The largest and most widely used open source project in history is releasing one of their periodic updates, and lots of people with no industry (or life) experience are going to complain about it.
What's the current status of custom ROM development these days!! I hv been out of the sync for a while. It seems mostly dead except for few players like LOS, Graphene, Paranoid (prolly), I guess there are still some smaller enthusiasts, but they probably just kang old code and features rather than providing stable support.
GOS is not "paranoid", lol, it's just releasing the fastest asd adding cherry on top, and not bundling Google services (but allowing you to install them)
If you're wondering for a possible reason and whether google is just being "lazy", see [1].
Tl;Dr: google has certain commitments they need to make depending on when the source code is released. Expect more delays moving forward thanks to this law.
And what does 'released' mean in this context? GrapheneOS has very publicly stated that security patches are under embargo, and they already have patches for the March 2026 release. See [1]:
> 2025110800: All of the Android 16 security patches from the current December 2025, January 2026, February 2026 and March 2026 Android Security Bulletins are included in the 2025110801 security preview release. List of additional fixed CVEs:
So, have they been released? No. So the clock hasn't started ticking yet. This EU law made security worse for everyone as patches that are done today are not released for 4+ months.
Note: These are CLOSED source blobs GrapheneOS is shipping. If they were open source, the 4 months clock would trigger immediately but they are not allowed to do this themselves as they get the patches from an OEM partner. GrapheneOS shipping these CLOSED source blobs, that Google has NOT released does not trigger the timer.
I do accept that QPR1 was 'released' by Google on Pixel months ago, and therefore the timer started, however, Google will likely pick and chose what is best for OS updates/security patches. It explains why AOSP is now private/closed source and embargos are being used to get around the laws requirements.
> (c) security updates or corrective updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 4 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;
> (d) functionality updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 6 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;
Doesn't the embargo concern the source code of the patches (and detailed information about the CVEs), not the release of the patched binaries?
Either way, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Even after reading your other comments here in this subtree, I don't see anything in the regulation you linked that would have delayed the source code release of Android 16 QPR1, given that the QPR1 binaries had already been released.
It's a rather intriguing concept, because it can be the case that the binaries Google released in QPR1 and their source code are different in some way. OEMs must ship QPR1 as Google released publicly within 6 months.
If this open-source release was to contain new patches, they must now ship these changes within 6 months. The Pixel OS release counts as the first 6 month timer. The source code release, by definition, now counts as the 2nd timer.
I expect the closed source binaries and public source code to be the same, but that may not always be the case. So OEMs are expected to at least in 6 months ship an update with the open-source code.
I would argue QPR updates are functionality and subject to the 6 month test.
I would also argue a closed source release in August 2025 would start the first 6 month timer (February 2026) and the source code release to trigger another timer (if they differed in any way between the closed source release).
A lot of this law is abstract and only if the EU challenges Google's approach would it be decided how it's meant to be applied in reality.
I believe QPR includes security fixes as well, which should trigger the 4 month timer
Your comment seemed to imply that a source release would trigger a different timer than a binary release, which is explicitly covered as the same thing in the law - for both the 4 and 6 month timers.
It reads to me like the opposite. Another case of manufacturers being unable to release updates in a prompt manner. Google delaying the release gives them more time to update.
What? Please explain what commitments exactly are causing Google to not release source code at the same time as the update. Until you do that, your statement is as valuable as writing 'Thanks, Obama!'
> (c) security updates or corrective updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 4 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;
> (d) functionality updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 6 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;
So if Google releases an update for Pixel, the 'clock' starts ticking from that date, otherwise, it goes by when the source code is released. Google can pick and choose what works best for them and their partners according to these rules.
Hence why delaying the source code may be preferable. This is why security patches are being delayed as per GrapheneOS (under embargo)
For example: Google releases Android 20, under embargo to all OEMS, this is not released on Pixel, is entirely closed source (hence why AOSP is now private) and therefore doesn't trigger the law. Android 20 could be ready for months, but until it's released on Pixel or open source, those clauses are not triggered. This is already happening to security patches, see my comment above.
So EU mandates that security updates in either source OR binary form must hit all users in at most 4 months after they are first published, therefore Google started delaying releasing source code and will start delaying it even more?
A more correct expectation would be that now Google will start delaying all security updates (both binary and source) until all their important downstream vendors are able to release in time.
Even that is doubtful, as Google would have to take the reputational damage for an ongoing exploitation of a security issue.
The functional updates though might get slowed down.
See my comment [1]. This is already happening with security patches and GrapheneOS has already commented on their socials about the situation.
It's quite bad as security patches used to take around a month, now it's around 4 months and the patches are being leaked to threat actors who can exploit the bugs until the patches are released.
Example: A patch is fixed on September 1st, released under embargo/closed source to all OEMs. Pixel issues the patch in December 1st publicly (either source code/software update), they now have until April 1st (4 months) to release it according to the law. So the patch is 7 months old before it has to be released according to the law.
All the march 2026 updates are done, now, today, and ready/waiting, but they are not released by Pixel/open source. Once that happens the timer will begin.
Stop blaming the EU. They didn't make security worse. It's Google and the other manufacturers who decided to respond to this law by using a loophole that made security far worse.
Before the EU law, Android would release monthly bulletins, and patches would take about a month before being released on Pixel devices, once known as 'best in class' security. GrapheneOS have themselves admitted this has changed from 1 month to 4. This has been done to comply with this new EU law.
Now, we have patches already for March 2026 in November 2025. Once the March 2025 patches are shipped by Google, OEMs have 4 months for all OEMs to ship it (deadline being July 2026).
Consider this scenario:
Patch for bug lands January 2026. Google decides to either release a Pixel OS update or release the source code in 8 months time containing this patch for whatever reason. Then a 4 month timer starts for all OEMs to ship that patch. Meaning a patch that has existed from January 2026 can now be shipped by January 2027 under this system and fully comply with the law. This patch may be under active exploit as OEMs have leaked it which again, GrapheneOS have admitted is happening.
Previously, patches would be landing within the month. All google must do is ensure this patch is not included in any pixel OS update or public source code release.
Yes, Google is responsible, but when the EU touts laws as fining 4% of global turnover (in the case of GDPR), then they are going to be taken seriously, which means OEMs demanding Google not release the update for Pixel/source code until they are ready and use this loophole as they are doing.
The loser is ultimately the end user who has a weaker more exploitable device for months.
I don't get it. Why not release it now and start the timer now? Shitty OEMs would get in trouble (not Google) and that would be a fantastic outcome. Am I missing something?
Because shitty OEMs pay Google a lot of money to put Google Mobile Services on their shitty phones and it’s bad to piss off your customers (note: you are not a Google customer if you use Android).
it has an integrated touch screen display with a viewable diagonal size of 10,16 centimetres (or 4,0 inches) or more, but less than 17,78 centimetres (or 7,0 inches);
I wonder if 3.99 inch and 7.01 inch smartphones will start appearing again.
> where the device has a foldable display or has more than one display, at least one of the displays falls into the size range in either opened or closed mode.
also this: does this mean that foldable phones with three 3.99" screens are excluded
This has absolutely nothing to do with that law, and even Google doesn't dare use it as an excuse for its behavior (as they did with GDPR by deliberately creating user friction that the European regulation did not require, and even partially forbids).
In reality, it's a purely political decision to curb the development of third-party ROMs, because the AOSP source code exists with all the merges and is distributed to vendors (like Samsung). However, it's not necessarily just to target GrapheneOS and LineageOS; it might also be to target the Chinese market, particularly Huawei, which uses this source code for HarmonyOS.
It absolutely has everything to do with this new law. For the first time, depending on when Google releases source code, or releases a Pixel update, the timer (4 months for security, 6 months functionality) starts. This has never existed before in Android OS' history that updates are timed (in law) according to Pixel updates/software updates or open source releases. This law also applies to Apple but they will have no problems as they are compliant anyway as they control software/hardware entirely and it's closed source.
This is the entire reason AOSP went private/closed source, and why Google is delaying security patches as per GrapheneOS. The March 2026 patches are already released by GrapheneOS as closed source blobs. They are not allowed to release them as open source by embargo (essentially NDA). Why do you think Pixel hasn't shipped security patches earmarked for March 2026? There are some critical bugs those patches fix, why not release them today, right now or next month? Because if Pixel releases just a single patch, via a Pixel update or posts it on AOSP, the 4 month timer begins for every single OEM with a phone in the EU. By making the patches under embargo, Google gets to control exactly when the timer starts to coordinate with their OEMs. So the slowest OEM gets to control the entirety of Androids security model.
Ask yourself, why doesn't GrapheneOS just release their patches publicly/open source? Why have different 'security releases' with closed source blobs?
Because if they did:
1: They lose their partner OEM access to these patches
2: Every OEM would be required to release those same patches 4 months to the day GrapheneOS releases them.
> 2: Every OEM would be required to release those same patches 4 months to the day GrapheneOS releases them.
I don't think that's true since the regulation you linked says:
> (c) security updates or corrective updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 4 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;
(emphasis mine)
GrapheneOS is not the OS provider in this context, Google is.
> at the latest 4 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system
So if somebody reverse engineers the patch, or releases the patch under embargo (which the OEMs would have the source code) that would count as a 'public release'. So GrapheneOS can ship closed source patches as you are right, they are not the provider. If GrapheneOS released the source code they are getting from their OEM then it would count as a 'public release of the source code'.
A patch in itself can be considered an 'update of the underlying operating system' and therefore the moment it becomes public it needs to be patched by all OEMs within 4 months.
GrapheneOS have themselves said that if somebody did reverse engineer the closed source blobs and posted them publicly they could then ship the patches openly at that point but not until.
It must be stated a lot of the wording of this clause and interperetation of what is/is not considered 'publicly releasing source code' is up for debate/courts to settle.
> Because if Pixel releases just a single patch, via a Pixel update or posts it on AOSP, the 4 month timer begins for every single OEM with a phone in the EU.
And that's exactly what the law was about, this timer is a good thing. Now they should close the "artificial delay" loophole.
Can someone with more context explain what this means and maybe the background?
Android 16 QPR1 rolled out in binary-only form to phones that are blessed by Google over two months ago, and it's only just now that they bothered to actually release the source of their open-source operating system.
And it is very important to remember: being able to do this is the reason why companies have brainwashed the Internet into choosing the MIT license for everything.
With GPL-only code, the world would be much nicer for all of us.
Nobody needed to "brainwash" me into choosing the MIT license for my projects. I choose it because I disagree with the philosophy of the GPL, and think that true freedom requires the freedom for others to make their own licensing choices. You are quite welcome to disagree with that stance, but please cut out the inflammatory language. It's not charitable towards others and it isn't healthy for good discussion.
If the Linux Kernel was licensed permissively, none of the phone manufacturers would've released the source code of their kernel trees.
The GPL is the reason we have Android custom Roms today.
This is probably the biggest and most successful example of utilizing non-permissive open source licensing for the public good - I’m curious why so many places I’ve worked have insisted on avoiding using libraries with GPL licenses in favor of MIT licensed projects, while at the same time hosting all of their services on different flavors of Linux.
It definitely seems like MIT is favored by big corps but at the end of the day, they’ll use GPL licensed code if it’s the best option. Which makes me wonder why it’s so demonized.
Compatibility with proprietary dependencies that the company cannot control. If I'm not mistaken, GPL requires the release of the dependencies' source code too if there are no other implementations around.
I would be happy to hear from anyone who knows about this subject if what I'm saying is correct.
It depended on whether the programs were distributed together. So it wasn't okay to link against OpenSSL for GNU/Linux distributions (although interpretations varied). For a time, this was used to push GNUTLS as an alternative to OpenSSL. But it was generally agreed upon that it was okay to link against CryptoAPI on Windows because you would not distribute Windows code along with your GPL binaries.
That's certainly the FSF's stance, but I don't know if it's been tested.
> I’m curious why so many places I’ve worked have insisted on avoiding using libraries with GPL licenses in favor of MIT licensed projects
Because failing to manage their GPL obligations led to a lawsuit for D-Link followed by a compulsion to release a lot more code than they ever planned to share online, to the company's detriment.
You can pretty much look at the stock value before and after they lost the lawsuit. There was, notably, a big value spike immediately after, but the value then settled down to an average of around 15 a share, markedly below their previous 30 a share.
For some companies, the value is in the proprietary content and using GPL would be shooting themselves in the foot.
I think that a lot of companies stepped back from the GPL when GPLv3 was announced, because it puts some pretty severe restrictions on how you can productize.
The tl;dr is that for any GPLv3 software that you ship, you have to also give your users a way to install a modified copy. If you're trying to ship a secured product, that basically means that you have to give code/rootfs signing keys to your customers. This is a non-starter for many kinds of products that need tamper protection (whether for product, legal, or safety reasons).
The Linux kernel remains on GPLv2, and is still used quite heavily. Most GNU software (coreutils, gcc, etc) moved to GPLv3 and then commercial companies abandoned them in favor of permissively-licensed replacements.
> If you're trying to ship a secured product, that basically means that you have to give code/rootfs signing keys to your customers. This is a non-starter for many kinds of products that need tamper protection (whether for product, legal, or safety reasons).
Fuck that. If it's my device then I want to have control. If I want to violate part 15 of the FCC rules then I'm going to do it and nobody is going to stop me. This paternalistic rubbish has to stop, I'm sure your company would love to retain ultimate control of the thing you've sold me, but that's not compatible with a free society.
Would you feel the same way if we're talking about your car's driver-assistance ECU? If you can change its contents, then so can a remote attacker.
"remote"? No. I want my driver-assistance ECU to be air-gapped but fully reprogrammable locally. After all, even with a totally tivoized ECU, a physically present attacker could still make my car kill me by cutting my brake lines.
When it open source, it can be patched to fix RCE. Binary blobs are much harder to patch, so just buy a brand new car with brand new RCE.
> Open source === RCEs/vulnerabilities
Welcome back 2005 bill gates
Why do you say "secured" when you mean "tivoized"? That's not actually a requirement for anything to be safe or secure.
> while at the same time hosting all of their services on different flavors of Linux.
That linux uses GPL is entirely irrelevant to the vast majority of uses of it. What hosting services are customizing their kernels with proprietary code?
Lawyers are cautious people, not accepting interpretations. Until courts say otherwise, GPL is too high of a risk to use as a library.
See also, FreeBSD: Plenty of commercial offerings around it, no source for most of them, because the license doesn't require it. For example, there's no source for the Playstation kernels/userlands released by Sony. They only upstream some bug fixes that would be too onerous to keep in their private fork.
> They only upstream some bug fixes that would be too onerous to keep in their private fork.
Are you arguing that more good things would go upstream if it were licensed non-permissive or are you giving an example were it works well enough?
They're privatizing their profits and socializing their losses.
It's not healthy.
That's entirely speculative.
The speculation has merits and makes sense. But is speculative nontheless.
It's not speculation.
In order to build a custom Rom, you need three things: the kernel tree, the device tree, and the binary blobs.
The binary blobs can be extracted from a running phone.
The kernel tree is GPL-licensed, so almost all phones have kernel trees releases, and if they don't you can ask the manufacturer for it.
The device tree on the other hand, is created from scratch for each phone. As such, there is no pre-existing license, and therefore no legal obligation to release device tree sources, so almost no manufacturer does. The only notable exception is Google with their Nexus and Pixel phones. (But this has stopped since with the Android 16 release)
We can safely assume that the manufacturers that don't release the device trees, wouldn't have released kernel trees if they weren't obliged to.
To go into more details:
The device trees are relatively easy to make. So, their absence doesn't represent a big hurdle. See for example https://xdaforums.com/t/guide-how-to-make-a-device-tree-for-...
But adding support for a device to the Linux Kernel requires _huge_ reverse-engineering efforts. This is why there's still no fully functional Android build for iPhones.
> In order to build a custom Rom, you need three things: the kernel tree, the device tree, and the binary blobs.
And a license to use the binary blobs for that purpose. Is it a given that doing that is allowed?
IANAL; but - jurisdiction dependent.
Some have "interoperability exceptions" - so if you have been granted a license to something, you can reuse it in different context (so for instance you could run Microsoft Office on WINE even if Microsoft's license forbids it).
Some have restrictions on redistribution (but the builds just using the blobs from the old filesystem are fine).
A lot of that is in the gray area, and for that very reason many builds don't actually redistribute blobs - they extract and reuse them live.
Not at all. We have a lot of experience with this with such licenses and other software. BSD as just one example. Not only do we have a pile of emperical evidence, it's also a priori obvious: they're not going to expend any effort or take any risk if its not neccessary. They can just benefit without paying.
Easy see the upstream contributions from any commercial vendor that has integrated BSD into their UNIX flavours, or the alternatives that exist nowadays for embedded FOSS operating systems, none of them GPL.
I can get the source of the kernel, including all drivers, running on my android phone with a few clicks and build a custom ROM.
Where can I get the source of the exact kernel running on iOS devices, including all drivers?
How about the Playstation 4 or 5? Where can I get the source of their FreeBSD fork?
> I can get the source of the kernel, including all drivers, running on my android phone with a few clicks and build a custom ROM.
No, most drivers are closed source and you can just extract binary blobs for them. They run as daemons that communicate through the binder ipc - Android basically turned the Linux kernel into a microkernel.
Indeed, since Android 8 all drivers are in userspace and use Android IPC to talk to the Linux kernel.
Traditional Linux drivers are considered legacy in Android.
https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/hal
Yep, my Pixel 5 with stock OS and Pixel 6 with Graphene are hacked via WiFi blobs, which are not updated and cannot be patched.
"If i stop eating, ill die" is also speculative. Do we have validate everything like we were born yesterday?
It's the tolerance against intolerance paradox, basically. The freedom to take away freedom. I'm leaning towards not giving that freedom, but it's complicated.
A good example of that is Apple moving from bash to zsh, because bash moved to GPL 3 which prevents locking down devives. It was very specifically because they wanted the freedom to take away their users' freedom.
I will say here something I have said and has proved unpopular before. The complexity is mainly something of scale. I would propose more permissive MIT style licensing for small companies, and something stricter for larger companies. It is hard to enforce (which was the main complaint I got), but it's not impossible and I think it is better than the current state of affairs.
This may already exist in practice.
Large companies will self-enforce, as they already do with GPL and "open" LLMs that are dual licensed by company size. Small companies don't care either way and are hard to enforce, so that works.
Any pointers to open/closed vendors and projects which use this kind of honor system?
EU CRA has "commercial use" definitions to differentiate OSS contributors and OSS consumers.
Not that I know of, but there are many subscription services that are based on institutional size / income, and they are more often than not self-certifying.
Despite anyone's personal views, it's undeniable that corps favour a Free they can use as they wish. It's also fairly evident that they make this favour known through their culture. Brainwashing may be a bit far, but only just.
All for naught, I fear, while LLMs consume all and regurgitate license-free to vibe-coders everywhere.
Then you care about a different kind of freedom than GPL proponents: licensing freedom, rather than user freedom, basically. There is no 'true freedom', as it comes down to the point of view; no licence will give you both at the same time.
User freedom isn't really that though. It's corporate goodwill. If a company uses GPL code and doesn't release it what is the enforcement mechanism? A lengthy court proceeding that can go either way and will likely bankrupt the less wealthy party. Or if they are in another country they can tell you to piss off and you have no way of getting the code. We see this all the time with China. In essence, they are the same but one allows you ask nicely and hope that the corporation is feeling generous.
> true freedom requires the freedom for others to make their own licensing choices
You're mixing up freedom and power. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html for an explanation.
Like tolerance, he irony of freedom is that you cant give others the freedom to limit anyone elses freedom. Thats actually the way to maximize freedom
So what's your rationale for denying recipients true freedom and choosing to shackle them under the terms of the MIT License?
This is an example of a "When did you stop beating your wife" question. It assumes only "true freedom" can stem from a license other than the MIT one without any attempt to arrive at the conclusion that the MIT license doesn't reflect "true freedom."
No, it's not. How old are you?
> You are quite welcome to disagree with that stance, but please cut out the inflammatory language. It's not charitable towards others and it isn't healthy for good discussion.
It is no more inflammatory than the coordinated war that was waged against copyleft licenses on tech fora and social media for more than a decade before hackers started to realize en masse that it was all a ploy to extract free labor from them. There are legitimate uses for permissive licenses and I still use them for those. But the big players certainly pushed them well beyond those cases where they made any sense. More than enough evidence has since emerged that prove this to be the case.
It does no one any favors to deny the presence of bad actors and their malintent behind the utter mess we find ourselves in right now. I find it disturbing that whenever people express their frustration regarding this, there are attempts to shoot them down with accusations of inflammatory language, political correctness, etc. But the truth is that the big players have caused far far more damage than any inflammatory citicism they face for it now. What's actually unhealthy for good discussion is the dystopian censorship of criticisms because the truth make some people uncomfortable. Every bit of harsh criticism they receive here is something they willfully and rightfully earned.
> hackers started to realize en masse that it was all a ploy to extract free labor from them.
There are at least three different groups of people here:
1. Those paid to write permissively licensed software - not free labour.
2. Those who are happy to be free labour. I read a comment by a BSD developer about being very proud and happy to be able to buy a games console that ran on a BSD derived OS.
3. Naive people who are are shocked when someone creates a proprietary fork of their code. It is something that they explicitly gave everyone permission to do, and it is something that has been happening for decades - I can think of Windows using BSD network code in the early 90s, but there are probably much earlier examples. Apple's OSes are very high profile examples since 2001, and Nextstep before that.
The last group have themselves to blame. Did they not take the trouble to understand a legal document? Do they know nothing about the history of their industry? Do they takes steps to stop it - for example by doing releasing updates under a copyleft license?
I agree with you that big players do push licenses that suite themselves, but it relies on either deliberate choice or foolishness by contributors for it to work. I also think copyleft is usually of greater benefit to society.
People being naive doesn't give the bad actors the right to exploit them. That's victim blaming. The responsibility falls squarely on the actors who actively made the unethical/immoral choice.
> What's actually unhealthy for good discussion is the dystopian censorship of criticisms because the truth make some people uncomfortable
I think you're missing the point.
There are developers who prefer MIT not because they're a "big player" or "because truth make people uncomfortable", people simply have different preference for what the ideal license is for their project.
If you cannot deal with that, that sounds like a you problem, but judging by your comments, you're not exactly gonna re-evaluate with a different perspective, since you seem unable to understand others have different ideas and opinions than you.
Others having different ideas and opinions doesn't mean that those ideas and opinions are correct, or that they are beneficial. They might be detrimental to the FOSS movement or to society in general.
So "to each their own" only goes so far.
One can very well accept that other devs/teams have different ideas and opinions && that they can (by law) have such ideas and opinions, but also think that they have them for the wrong reasons, and that they shouldn't have them, and that we'd all be better off if they didn't.
The parent did say
> There are legitimate uses for permissive licenses and I still use them for those.
The parent didn't talk about forcing developers to choose copyleft. And you ignored the stated legitimate reasons for choosing copyleft in most cases if you care about the society.
> I think you're missing the point.
> There are developers who prefer MIT not because they're a "big player" or "because truth make people uncomfortable", people simply have different preference for what the ideal license is for their project.
Did you miss this part in my comment?:
> There are legitimate uses for permissive licenses and I still use them for those.
Or this part from GP's comment?:
> being able to do this is the reason why companies have brainwashed the Internet into ...
Or this part?:
> ... choosing the MIT license for everything
(emphasis mine) All of these imply that the companies did a mass campaign and not individual brainwashing. They also imply that the MIT license is not suitable for everything and by corollary that there are instances where they do apply. All of it are aimed at the companies that resorted to these underhanded tactics. Where does any of these imply that every single use of the MIT license is due to brainwashing? I can't understand how anyone concludes instead that it's all a personal attack on MIT license users (that includes me too).
> If you cannot deal with that, that sounds like a you problem, but judging by your comments, you're not exactly gonna re-evaluate with a different perspective, since you seem unable to understand others have different ideas and opinions than you.
Not only does one have to deal with people reinterpreting others' comments according to their convenience, they also have to withstand guilt tripping based on it. And the irony is that you cite my complaint about the same issue for it!
Agree 100%. I gave up on the GPL before I even knew what exactly it was about because of the zealotry of many of its proponents. I would even go as far as saying that without the FSF, GPL-like licenses would be much more common.
If I zealously advocated for you continue breathing, would you strangle yourself to spite me?
Any half-decent person is going to keep on breathing. It's one of the basic prerequisites of bringing some value to society. Not breathing is selfish and completely misses the point of life. If you're going to exist, then breathe; it's really as simple as that.
You may disagree with the overly-derogatory term "brainwash", but I think it is true that corporations have been spreading FUD around coopyleft licenses for a while now, and the balance has tilted toward permissive licenses for new projects.
ideally -- without a legal system using force to stop people using knowledge (IP laws), -- i would be on your position. in fact, i used to agree with you.
but in the current reality around us, i believe it's a more nuanced issue.
Some of the reason why the MIT license etc. is more popular surely has to do with the license text itself. I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license. With the GPL, not so much. It's verbose and complex and has different versions.
Would it really be impossible to have a license with similar brevity as MIT but similar consequences as GPL?
Brevity maybe, but ease of understanding no. Copyleft licenses interact with copyright law in ways that permissive licences just don't need to. The closest you can get is probably MPL-2.0.
The GPL is particularly bad here as it pretends to define what is or isn't a derivative work, which is outside the scope of a licence but within the scope of a court. The EUPL was created partly because EU directives bound the viral clause in ways the FSF won't admit to, although that one isn't simple either (I'm not a fan of its compatibility clause).
No, the MIT license is short exactly because it has so little restrictions. You simply can't encode the desired result of GPL into 160 words like MIT can.
> I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license.
Sounds like you need a better lawyer.
The consequences of the GPL are not all that complicated. In most cases it boils down to offering the source if you distribute the code outside your organisation.
> In most cases
Therein lies the problem. When dealing with the law, you don't want to be relatively sure that you won't go to prison or won't get sued for $1M, you want to be completely sure.
Something like the GPL is complex and non-standard as far as its interactions with the legal system go, because it is essentially a sort of hack of copyright law. If it goes before a court, you have no idea what might potentially happen. So rather than deal with that kind of complexity and uncertainty, you'd use something under MIT or Apache License that is just much better understood.
> Therein lies the problem. When dealing with the law, you don't want to be relatively sure that you won't go to prison or won't get sued for $1M, you want to be completely sure.
Not really. Unless you are redistributing it does not affect you at all.
> Something like the GPL is complex and non-standard as far as its interactions with the legal system go
it is widely used, and most people are running some copyleft software anyway, most commonly GPL or a variant such as LGPL. Linux servers, Android phones, routers, web browsers....
The situations which cause that obligation to kick in can be decidedly non-obvious.
How so?
Say you have linked against a GPL'd dependency which you have not modified but for which there is no API-compatible substitute. Are you now bound by the terms of the GPL? FSF says "yes", which tends to surprise people. But if there is an API-compatible, non-GPL'd substitute, the answer arguably becomes "no". Note that this has nothing to do either with your work or with your direct dependency, but on the existence of some random artifact out in the ecosystem which may come into existence at any point in the timeline.
There are whole industries built around the notion that “License: MIT” is everything that is required to meet the notification requirements in the license. So I wouldn't say that the MIT license is easy to understand.
> I can understand the MIT license, and my corp lawyer can easily understand all the consequences of using something under MIT license. With the GPL, not so much.
Any IP lawyer who hasn't come across the GPL yet is probably not worth listening to.
I mean, would you listen to a bridge engineer who hasn't yet heard of a calculator? Sure, they may understand their shit, but if they haven't heard of calculators yet they are clearly not in the industry.
Any IP lawyer who hasn't yet read the GPL and formed a professional opinion on it isn't equipped to handle IP matters at all.
Right, I think people misunderstand "free" when they are dominating versus "free" when they are the smaller player. One is a tool for domination and capture, the other is a tool for freedom ESPECIALLY against a bigger player.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by laziness.
Personally, I MIT/BSD my stuff because, well... it means I don't have to think about it ever again. If I do GPL, I have to make sure that I'm following the rules set out in that license and making sure others who have based their code on my project have done the same.
And that's, like, work, man, especially if you don't have a foundation and legal eagles on your side to double-check that everything's kosher.
Linux is an exception, not a rule, in how GPL is usually handled in FLOSS projects.
>If I do GPL, I have to make sure that I'm following the rules set out in that license
If its all your own stuff you don't really have to care about the license. Otherwise the rules are pretty simple, include a GPL license and if requested by a user supply the source code (which you can even charge some money for).
>and making sure others who have based their code on my project have done the same.
If you don't care what others do with it, you don't have to enforce it.
As the sole copyright holder (A)GPL only gives you more options.
> and making sure others who have based their code on my project have done the same.
I do not believe the GPL requires that you make sure others who fork your code follow the GPL's rules.
It places restrictions on those others, but does not require you verify that those others follow the restrictions.
Then what's the practical difference between that and MIT/BSD licensing?
There's no difference for you. It's your code. Choosing a particular license can't restrict how you yourself use it. An absurdly common business model is for you to relicense to BSD/MIT/proprietary for a particular customer who pays you to; it's the same code, you're just not obligating that customer to share their changes if they redistribute it.
The GPL is a statement you're making about the rights that other people are granted when it comes to your code. It's not a personal pledge. Exactly like every other license btw; they aren't oaths. You're also not required to police or sue people who break your license. It's your code.
> Then what's the practical difference between that and MIT/BSD licensing?
Very simplified differences:
GPL: you shared the code with others, those others, if they modify your code, must continue to share their changes with others
MIT: you shared the code with others, those others can do as they please, including not sharing any changes they make to the code with anyone
Obviously, GPL allows you (and others) to request source code when Google uses a modified version of your code to make millions.
It doesn't force you to go after them.
With MIT, you Google would have no obligation at all to provide anything.
> It doesn't force you to go after them.
That's just it, though. If it doesn't carry any sort of possibility of being enforced, well... why bother? I could just go with the easier-to-understand license, like someone upthread mentioned.
If we're going to see the promised tech ecosystem that GPL's authors aimed to provide, we're going to need more people to take it seriously. Most people don't want to take it seriously, and if that's the case, we're better off if they just went with MIT/BSD.
Why it seems that MPL is left out of the discussion? I find its clauses a reasonable middle ground.
This is absurd.
Most of, if not all, code that was released today was written by Google. Then can release it, or not release it, regardless of license.
Android was never a community project with outside contributions. The license does not limit the original authors.
I'm not saying Google shouldn't have released them immediately. But GPL vs Apache vs MIT has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I mostly agree, unless the new release modifies GPL code submitted by other entities than Google - their licensing of that code under GPL would force Google to release the rest too.
To be more pedantic here, Google doesn't have to publish anything anywhere.
According to the GPL, the only thing they would have to do is provide source code to the users of their software upon their request.
True, though I doubt that would've happened either (possibly it would have sped up this publication).
Except Google also violates the GPL so that's not the only relevant factor.
> it's only just now that they bothered to actually release the source of their open-source operating system.
Do you really need to have snark for an open source project?
Open-source projects maintained by individual developers working for free absolutely deserve more respect than that, but ones maintained by the most profitable company in the world [1] do not, especially when they go out of their way to change from doing the right thing to doing the wrong thing [2].
[1]: https://www.financecharts.com/screener/most-profitable
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484927
> ..., especially when they go out of their way to change from doing the right thing to doing the wrong thing.
And let's not forget this part. Android is a member of the mobile platform duopoly. Another similar project - Chrome - is almost a monopoly among web platforms. Both these projects exploit the open source label and most people's false belief that open source somehow equates to respect and protection of user rights. (Philosophically, it's only free software that cares about user rights. Both projects are textbook examples of non-free open source software.) This actually protects these projects to some extend from criticisms and penalties against the dark patterns that they employ to corrupt and exploit both the mobile and the web ecosystems. They absolutely don't deserve the same considerations as the passionate and underpaid small teams or individual maintainers.
I thought we were talking about the Android project? /sarcasm
It's Google, I think they've sucked up enough of our digital lives and economy to handle a bit of snark.
So why do you so badly want to use their operating system to care what they do and how they license it?
It's their work, their OS and we have others.
I don't.
Being more constructive, the future isn't looking bright for freedom of choice in mobile OSes, as governments and banks enforce use of approved apps on approved devices for identification and banking. Without one of either an Android or an iPhone, things get difficult. My government for example can consider a phone running something like GrapheneOS a Criminal Device.
Android is the most open of the two, being open source, so it would be nice if it stayed that way.
Applying your argument more broadly, we shouldn't critique any product or changes made to it, and I don't see any reason why that should be true.
Caring about the products you use is pretty standard behaviour, and when the product changes under the user's hands, it's normal to complain. It can resolve the issue faster and less painfully than switching products would.
No, my argument is not what you applied here.
The fact of the matter is that Android is fully funded and developed by Google and you kinda don't have much standing to control what they do with their project and how - especially if all you can say is that their work is bad.
You can be unhappy about it, but it doesn't change that its their work and their money on the line here with very little relationship to you or your wishes. You're not even a paying customer.
This doesn't apply to "any product or changes" at large.
You said we can be unhappy, which is what the grandparent was being, but you took issue with that anyway. I imagine people in deep enough to care about the downstream release cycle of android are well aware of the power structures at play. Being under the thumb of a massive corporate is not an enviable position but here we are, and here we complain.
Sure, but they also get a full opensource operating system for free in exchange.
wym we are not paying customers? every person with an android phone is a paying customer indirectly and can complain about its development
You're a paying customer of Samsung et. al.
You don't become a paying customer of Linus when you get a Thinkpad with Ubuntu.
It's not the same lol I become a paying customer of Samsung and Google because Samsung paid for it (you have to pay for your device to be verified and access Google Play Services) and some of the cost is absorbed by me
I don't become a PAYING customer of Linus because Thinkpad didn't pay for Ubuntu (and if anything was paid I would become a customer of Canonical)
Yes. Precisely because it's "open source", not "free".
A project which uses and depends on a lot of other third-party OSS? Maybe.
Yes, open source requires snark just as much as tone policing
Have they been in breach of GPL terms during the intervening two months?
Most of Android isn't GPL, so I would guess not.
This means the source code is finally being released for the quarterly release that came out in september. Roms like lineageos had to target QPR0 which came out back in June but can now bring up to this. Google used to release the source to AOSP right after the releases happened, now they don't.
Additional context per fediverse thread: The GPL code (i.e. kernel) was released on time, this is the AOSP userspace portions which Google isn't legally obligated to release (which doesn't make it not a dick move not to).
What was Googles "corporatespeak" reason for not releasing it right away?
There doesn't need to be "corporatespeak". They don't have to release it right away. They don't have to release it at all.
"Leave the billion dollar corporation alone!"
Another practical consequence is that GrapheneOS may finally be able to support Pixel 10 phones.
Yep! https://piunikaweb.com/2025/11/12/grapheneos-pixel-10-suppor...
Edit: never mind, this is just an article quoting the post at the top of this discussion.
it means custom roms maintainers like lineageos, can now work on adding android 16.1 builds
The largest and most widely used open source project in history is releasing one of their periodic updates, and lots of people with no industry (or life) experience are going to complain about it.
Here is a link to view it.
https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/andro...
Since when did they stop using Gerrit? On mobile and it doesn’t appear to be that.
They still do. This is Android Code Search, which is a typical file tree and contents viewer.
They still use gerrit, that site is a code search UI that they have that is also a very nice way to navigate the code.
What's the current status of custom ROM development these days!! I hv been out of the sync for a while. It seems mostly dead except for few players like LOS, Graphene, Paranoid (prolly), I guess there are still some smaller enthusiasts, but they probably just kang old code and features rather than providing stable support.
Very happy with the quality of GrapheneOS and modern Google Pixel devices. Can recommend.
It is certainly not dead. The dead thing should be forced obsoletion and vendor lock-in. Dead is a subjective term.
GOS is not "paranoid", lol, it's just releasing the fastest asd adding cherry on top, and not bundling Google services (but allowing you to install them)
Ik GOS is not paranoid, "prolly" -> I wasn't sure whether Paranoid is still alive or not, it was there last year though
Paranoid Android (operating system): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_Android_(operating_sy...
Paranoid is another custom ROM - GP wasn't calling Graphene paranoid.
If you're wondering for a possible reason and whether google is just being "lazy", see [1].
Tl;Dr: google has certain commitments they need to make depending on when the source code is released. Expect more delays moving forward thanks to this law.
[1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AJOL...
> certain commitments they need to make depending on when the source code is released
…or when OS updates are released, see Annex II B 1.2 (6) (c) and (d) ("Smartphones" > "Design for reliability" > "Operating system updates")
So given that the updates were already released months ago, the release of the source code is irrelevant.
And what does 'released' mean in this context? GrapheneOS has very publicly stated that security patches are under embargo, and they already have patches for the March 2026 release. See [1]:
> 2025110800: All of the Android 16 security patches from the current December 2025, January 2026, February 2026 and March 2026 Android Security Bulletins are included in the 2025110801 security preview release. List of additional fixed CVEs:
So, have they been released? No. So the clock hasn't started ticking yet. This EU law made security worse for everyone as patches that are done today are not released for 4+ months.
Note: These are CLOSED source blobs GrapheneOS is shipping. If they were open source, the 4 months clock would trigger immediately but they are not allowed to do this themselves as they get the patches from an OEM partner. GrapheneOS shipping these CLOSED source blobs, that Google has NOT released does not trigger the timer.
I do accept that QPR1 was 'released' by Google on Pixel months ago, and therefore the timer started, however, Google will likely pick and chose what is best for OS updates/security patches. It explains why AOSP is now private/closed source and embargos are being used to get around the laws requirements.
[1]: https://grapheneos.org/releases#2025110800
From the EU law:
> (c) security updates or corrective updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 4 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;
> (d) functionality updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 6 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;
Doesn't the embargo concern the source code of the patches (and detailed information about the CVEs), not the release of the patched binaries?
Either way, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Even after reading your other comments here in this subtree, I don't see anything in the regulation you linked that would have delayed the source code release of Android 16 QPR1, given that the QPR1 binaries had already been released.
It's a rather intriguing concept, because it can be the case that the binaries Google released in QPR1 and their source code are different in some way. OEMs must ship QPR1 as Google released publicly within 6 months.
If this open-source release was to contain new patches, they must now ship these changes within 6 months. The Pixel OS release counts as the first 6 month timer. The source code release, by definition, now counts as the 2nd timer.
I expect the closed source binaries and public source code to be the same, but that may not always be the case. So OEMs are expected to at least in 6 months ship an update with the open-source code.
You've explicitly quoted that source releases are not relevant:
> or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider
They have not released the source code, but they have released an update of their operating system on their reference Pixel hardware.
Therefore, all devices must update within 4 months of that Pixel release, regardless of source drops, per this law
I would argue QPR updates are functionality and subject to the 6 month test.
I would also argue a closed source release in August 2025 would start the first 6 month timer (February 2026) and the source code release to trigger another timer (if they differed in any way between the closed source release).
A lot of this law is abstract and only if the EU challenges Google's approach would it be decided how it's meant to be applied in reality.
I believe QPR includes security fixes as well, which should trigger the 4 month timer
Your comment seemed to imply that a source release would trigger a different timer than a binary release, which is explicitly covered as the same thing in the law - for both the 4 and 6 month timers.
>google has certain commitments
It reads to me like the opposite. Another case of manufacturers being unable to release updates in a prompt manner. Google delaying the release gives them more time to update.
What? Please explain what commitments exactly are causing Google to not release source code at the same time as the update. Until you do that, your statement is as valuable as writing 'Thanks, Obama!'
Yea, GP sounds like they want to drag "EU Bad" into this discussion.
I fail to see how this EU regulation promotes releasing software Closed Source and demotes releasing it Open Source.
> (c) security updates or corrective updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 4 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;
> (d) functionality updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 6 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;
So if Google releases an update for Pixel, the 'clock' starts ticking from that date, otherwise, it goes by when the source code is released. Google can pick and choose what works best for them and their partners according to these rules.
Hence why delaying the source code may be preferable. This is why security patches are being delayed as per GrapheneOS (under embargo)
For example: Google releases Android 20, under embargo to all OEMS, this is not released on Pixel, is entirely closed source (hence why AOSP is now private) and therefore doesn't trigger the law. Android 20 could be ready for months, but until it's released on Pixel or open source, those clauses are not triggered. This is already happening to security patches, see my comment above.
So EU mandates that security updates in either source OR binary form must hit all users in at most 4 months after they are first published, therefore Google started delaying releasing source code and will start delaying it even more?
A more correct expectation would be that now Google will start delaying all security updates (both binary and source) until all their important downstream vendors are able to release in time.
Even that is doubtful, as Google would have to take the reputational damage for an ongoing exploitation of a security issue.
The functional updates though might get slowed down.
See my comment [1]. This is already happening with security patches and GrapheneOS has already commented on their socials about the situation.
It's quite bad as security patches used to take around a month, now it's around 4 months and the patches are being leaked to threat actors who can exploit the bugs until the patches are released.
Example: A patch is fixed on September 1st, released under embargo/closed source to all OEMs. Pixel issues the patch in December 1st publicly (either source code/software update), they now have until April 1st (4 months) to release it according to the law. So the patch is 7 months old before it has to be released according to the law.
All the march 2026 updates are done, now, today, and ready/waiting, but they are not released by Pixel/open source. Once that happens the timer will begin.
This EU law has made security far worse.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45914692
> This EU law has made security far worse.
Stop blaming the EU. They didn't make security worse. It's Google and the other manufacturers who decided to respond to this law by using a loophole that made security far worse.
Before the EU law, Android would release monthly bulletins, and patches would take about a month before being released on Pixel devices, once known as 'best in class' security. GrapheneOS have themselves admitted this has changed from 1 month to 4. This has been done to comply with this new EU law.
Now, we have patches already for March 2026 in November 2025. Once the March 2025 patches are shipped by Google, OEMs have 4 months for all OEMs to ship it (deadline being July 2026).
Consider this scenario:
Patch for bug lands January 2026. Google decides to either release a Pixel OS update or release the source code in 8 months time containing this patch for whatever reason. Then a 4 month timer starts for all OEMs to ship that patch. Meaning a patch that has existed from January 2026 can now be shipped by January 2027 under this system and fully comply with the law. This patch may be under active exploit as OEMs have leaked it which again, GrapheneOS have admitted is happening.
Previously, patches would be landing within the month. All google must do is ensure this patch is not included in any pixel OS update or public source code release.
Yes, Google is responsible, but when the EU touts laws as fining 4% of global turnover (in the case of GDPR), then they are going to be taken seriously, which means OEMs demanding Google not release the update for Pixel/source code until they are ready and use this loophole as they are doing.
The loser is ultimately the end user who has a weaker more exploitable device for months.
> This EU law has made security far worse.
I don't get it. Why not release it now and start the timer now? Shitty OEMs would get in trouble (not Google) and that would be a fantastic outcome. Am I missing something?
Because shitty OEMs pay Google a lot of money to put Google Mobile Services on their shitty phones and it’s bad to piss off your customers (note: you are not a Google customer if you use Android).
it has an integrated touch screen display with a viewable diagonal size of 10,16 centimetres (or 4,0 inches) or more, but less than 17,78 centimetres (or 7,0 inches);
I wonder if 3.99 inch and 7.01 inch smartphones will start appearing again.
That should be easy for foldables: an external sub 4" display and an over 7" main display.
> where the device has a foldable display or has more than one display, at least one of the displays falls into the size range in either opened or closed mode.
also this: does this mean that foldable phones with three 3.99" screens are excluded
Parts of AOSP like the apps have been in limbo for way longer than that, maybe since Android 12.
This has absolutely nothing to do with that law, and even Google doesn't dare use it as an excuse for its behavior (as they did with GDPR by deliberately creating user friction that the European regulation did not require, and even partially forbids).
In reality, it's a purely political decision to curb the development of third-party ROMs, because the AOSP source code exists with all the merges and is distributed to vendors (like Samsung). However, it's not necessarily just to target GrapheneOS and LineageOS; it might also be to target the Chinese market, particularly Huawei, which uses this source code for HarmonyOS.
It absolutely has everything to do with this new law. For the first time, depending on when Google releases source code, or releases a Pixel update, the timer (4 months for security, 6 months functionality) starts. This has never existed before in Android OS' history that updates are timed (in law) according to Pixel updates/software updates or open source releases. This law also applies to Apple but they will have no problems as they are compliant anyway as they control software/hardware entirely and it's closed source.
This is the entire reason AOSP went private/closed source, and why Google is delaying security patches as per GrapheneOS. The March 2026 patches are already released by GrapheneOS as closed source blobs. They are not allowed to release them as open source by embargo (essentially NDA). Why do you think Pixel hasn't shipped security patches earmarked for March 2026? There are some critical bugs those patches fix, why not release them today, right now or next month? Because if Pixel releases just a single patch, via a Pixel update or posts it on AOSP, the 4 month timer begins for every single OEM with a phone in the EU. By making the patches under embargo, Google gets to control exactly when the timer starts to coordinate with their OEMs. So the slowest OEM gets to control the entirety of Androids security model.
Ask yourself, why doesn't GrapheneOS just release their patches publicly/open source? Why have different 'security releases' with closed source blobs?
Because if they did:
1: They lose their partner OEM access to these patches
2: Every OEM would be required to release those same patches 4 months to the day GrapheneOS releases them.
> 2: Every OEM would be required to release those same patches 4 months to the day GrapheneOS releases them.
I don't think that's true since the regulation you linked says:
> (c) security updates or corrective updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 4 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;
(emphasis mine)
GrapheneOS is not the OS provider in this context, Google is.
You're not reading the interpretation correctly:
> at the latest 4 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system
So if somebody reverse engineers the patch, or releases the patch under embargo (which the OEMs would have the source code) that would count as a 'public release'. So GrapheneOS can ship closed source patches as you are right, they are not the provider. If GrapheneOS released the source code they are getting from their OEM then it would count as a 'public release of the source code'.
A patch in itself can be considered an 'update of the underlying operating system' and therefore the moment it becomes public it needs to be patched by all OEMs within 4 months.
GrapheneOS have themselves said that if somebody did reverse engineer the closed source blobs and posted them publicly they could then ship the patches openly at that point but not until.
It must be stated a lot of the wording of this clause and interperetation of what is/is not considered 'publicly releasing source code' is up for debate/courts to settle.
> Because if Pixel releases just a single patch, via a Pixel update or posts it on AOSP, the 4 month timer begins for every single OEM with a phone in the EU.
And that's exactly what the law was about, this timer is a good thing. Now they should close the "artificial delay" loophole.
Isn’t Huawei moving away from Android as a base for Harmony?
[dead]