NHacker Next
login
▲Android 16 QPR1 is being pushed to the Android Open Source Projectgrapheneos.social
78 points by uneven9434 4 hours ago | 25 comments
Loading comments...
charcircuit 2 hours ago [-]
Here is a link to view it.

https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/andro...

kamranjon 3 hours ago [-]
Can someone with more context explain what this means and maybe the background?
josephcsible 3 hours ago [-]
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.
o11c 2 hours ago [-]
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.

bigstrat2003 37 minutes ago [-]
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.
goku12 1 minutes ago [-]
> 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.

oliwarner 1 minutes ago [-]
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.

semi-extrinsic 1 hours ago [-]
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?

debugnik 37 minutes ago [-]
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).

dtech 48 minutes ago [-]
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.
bitpush 3 hours ago [-]
> 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?

josephcsible 2 hours ago [-]
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

pseudosavant 3 hours ago [-]
I thought we were talking about the Android project? /sarcasm
ehnto 2 hours ago [-]
It's Google, I think they've sucked up enough of our digital lives and economy to handle a bit of snark.
wongogue 2 hours ago [-]
A project which uses and depends on a lot of other third-party OSS? Maybe.
MarsIronPI 1 hours ago [-]
Yes. Precisely because it's "open source", not "free".
joecool1029 3 hours ago [-]
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.
gpm 2 hours ago [-]
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).
rk06 1 hours ago [-]
it means custom roms maintainers like lineageos, can now work on adding android 16.1 builds
lawn 19 minutes ago [-]
Another practical consequence is that GrapheneOS may finally be able to support Pixel 10 phones.
virajk_31 2 hours ago [-]
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.
aboringusername 1 hours ago [-]
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...

charcircuit 38 minutes ago [-]
>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.

userbinator 1 hours ago [-]
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.

realusername 26 minutes ago [-]
Parts of AOSP like the apps have been in limbo for way longer than that, maybe since Android 12.