View Single Post
javispedro's Avatar
Posts: 2,355 | Thanked: 5,249 times | Joined on Jan 2009 @ Barcelona
#32
Originally Posted by olf View Post
Well, if one reads this ebuild script for CromeOS, it clearly states that bash is only used for building ChromeOS, but dash is embedded into the built image.
No, it doesn't say that anywhere. The comment just says that they use dash as the main shell, exactly like Debian. But they still ship bash, and in fact depend on it for running scripts which specify it on the shebang. Again exactly like Debian. In fact, RDEPEND means runtime dependency, not build-time dependency.

More evidence?
  • Go to chromeos://os-credits and grep for Bash, developer mode or not.
  • Kill your Wi-Fi (so that you can't claim that enabling developer mode installs something; you just need developer mode to get a allow terminal access), enable developer mode, open crosh, and let me know what happens when you type "bash".
  • Download _any_ image of ChromeOS and tell me what you see in the system partition, /bin/bash

Other GPL-3 packages that are preinstalled on my pixel go:
binutils, coreutils, dosfstools, exfat-utils, fuse-exfat, gdbm, glmark, gmp, gzip, mesa, mtools, readline, pycairo, rsync, rsyslog, samba (of course), .... and just way too many to count.

Originally Posted by olf View Post
And ChromeOS was just an example how Google handles GPLv3 software in order to understand Jolla's concerns and strategy better (which is achieved now).
Well, I still don't understand the concern. All the companies in the world can do it, even Microsoft and Google, can do it, so why can't Jolla?

Jolla, who _used_ to be one of the "most open" mobile devices around, and has disappointed me so much I've had to _publicly apologize_ about it?

Originally Posted by olf View Post
Demanding references to statements of the GPLv3 not to point at paragraphs within the GPLv3 does not make much sense (even if the "demanding" part is fully ignored).
Especially as you completely fail to reference any of your claims with something within the GPLv3 license text!
I quoted the authors of the license directly contradicting your statement. But this is apparently not enough.

On the other hand, you are just blanket-quoting the entire license and claiming that it satisfies your point of view.

I disagree and literally point how the authors of the license as well as all the largest software companies in the world disagree with your point of view.

Yet you again claim that I'm not providing sources while you have literally again not provided any single source for any of your FUD which as you're basically admitting you have none for. Not even for the "Dutch museum story" that I'm particularly curious about.

Double-standard?
 

The Following User Says Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post: