|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 01:31 AM EDT |
First realize that there are multiple anonymous posters with multiple
viewpoints, as there is presently a moratorium on the creation of named
accounts.
In terms off erroneous information, good motives aside, you, jbb, are yourself a
major source thereof. The reality of how Dalvik for example works can easily be
verified from Google's documentation, or for that matter by running 'ps' on an
android device. Your proposal, that one DVM somehow runs under multiple
userids, is not only not the case, but implausible on a unix-style OS.
Similarly, the claims that Google using GPL code in userspace would have forced
vendors to release the kinds of things they tend to change or add to userspace
for differentiation is also incorrect, and in conflict with uncontroversial
daily practice across the software industry. What is true is that there's a lot
of fear and misunderstanding of the GPL in corporate settings, and Google wanted
to minimize the impact of that fear by keeping GPL components to a minimum. But
avoiding GPL for marketing convenience, and avoiding GPL because GPL would be
incompatible with vendor's needs, are two very different things.
Google chose to create their own VM, and Google chose to use a mostly Apache
userspace. The trial is not about the technical details or merits of those
decisions, though mis-stating those details in the commentary is not helpful.
Rather, this trial is mostly about confirming their
unquestioned-by-anyone-with-a-clue right to have done it their own way. Most
importantly, their right to have chosen a non-GPL path is backed even by those
who are disappointed that they felt called to avoid GPL userspace code.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
