RemixOS -- Android for the PC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Remix Mini, a full PC from the RemixOS Team:
https://dn-cdn-shop-jide-com.qbox.me/jide_upload/E1446802429868_true-an.png
-
-
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/remix-os-now-respects-both-the-gpl-and-apache-licenses-499173.shtml
I'm confused, what where they trying to do before GPL? where they trying to keep it closed source?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/remix-os-now-respects-both-the-gpl-and-apache-licenses-499173.shtml
I'm confused, what where they trying to do before GPL? where they trying to keep it closed source?
They used open source code, without including the license or info that they were using that code, in their bootable USB maker.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/remix-os-now-respects-both-the-gpl-and-apache-licenses-499173.shtml
I'm confused, what where they trying to do before GPL? where they trying to keep it closed source?
They accidentally violated the license agreement.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/remix-os-now-respects-both-the-gpl-and-apache-licenses-499173.shtml
I'm confused, what where they trying to do before GPL? where they trying to keep it closed source?
They accidentally violated the license agreement.
by what? not including the GPL text file? or by not publishing the source code?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/remix-os-now-respects-both-the-gpl-and-apache-licenses-499173.shtml
I'm confused, what where they trying to do before GPL? where they trying to keep it closed source?
They accidentally violated the license agreement.
by what? not including the GPL text file? or by not publishing the source code?
Not publishing the source code.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/remix-os-now-respects-both-the-gpl-and-apache-licenses-499173.shtml
I'm confused, what where they trying to do before GPL? where they trying to keep it closed source?
They accidentally violated the license agreement.
by what? not including the GPL text file? or by not publishing the source code?
Not publishing the source code.
LOL - was that really an accident?
