Android Devices Are Hives of License Violations 299
inkscapee writes "Android developers are paying little attention to Free/Open Source software licenses and have a 71% violation rate. Come on folks, FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certainly easier than proprietary software licenses, and less punitive. But it seems even the tiny hoops that FOSS requires are too much for devs eager to cash in."
Do no evil (directly) (Score:1, Interesting)
Cool. So Google's motto is "Do no evil, but don't get in the way of letting others do it."
Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (Score:4, Interesting)
Not sure why you're modded Funny because your statement pretty much matches my experience.
I've found commercial licenses far easier to deal with than GPL, and that alone is why our company doesn't bother with anything that has GPL attached to it, its just not worth the effort.
Generally, there are BSD licensed equivilents of the major GPL libraries anyway so why screw with it?
Even Apples licensing is far easier to deal with than GPL, its just a minefield.
I realize I'm picking on GPL, but its true of just about all Copy-left licenses, which are most of the time more restrictive than commercial licenses I've dealt with.
Its sad that its far cheaper overall for our company to pay 100k in licensing fees than to use a copy-left license.
I'm sure I'll get marked as a troll but the reality of it is, copy-left is a fucking pain in the ass unless you are also copy-left. More software isn't than is.
Well hidden slashvertisement? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.openlogic.com/products/olex.php [openlogic.com]
This product will certify your source code is compliant after it scans it...
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Interesting)
And one set for GPL and Apache, too. That's pretty night and day as far as the requirements go, and it's not clear if all of those are really even violations.
I mean, GPL code, sure. That's pretty much toxic to closed source development. But Apache? How do you even violate the Apache license when you're distributing only object code?
Apache defines a derivative work very narrowly, such that (by my reading anyway) library code under an Apache license used as a small part of a larger work isn't one. Therefore, one could potentially argue that it doesn't even require attribution or a copy of the license....