Google replaced pushing Git tags for certain source code with obtaining source code via Google Drive after making a request through Google Forms. It's completely ridiculous and they've gradually become very slow at handling requests. They're in clear violation of the GPLv2 now.
Prior to moving it to Google Drive, they started squashing the history into a single commit prior to pushing release tags. The tarballs provided via Google Drive have exactly the same source code. However, they went out of the way to make it more inconvenient in several ways.
Initially, Google would usually provide access to the tarballs within a couple hours. Lately, they're often taking weeks to get back to us. They're the ones who chose to use this archaic system instead of pushing Git tags and it's their responsibility to handle requests promptly.
These changes won't negatively impact GrapheneOS on upcoming Motorola Mobility devices. In fact, it's a major part of why our partnership exists. It only negatively impacts Pixels and hurts Google more than anyone else. Google wants to make Pixels worse for no apparent reason.
Google could simply push signed tags to Git instead of having a person assigned to go through form submissions and give access to specific files. They could also give access to folders instead of files to avoid needing to give us access to more files multiple times a month.
If they insist on using Google Drive, they could at least automate giving access. It shouldn't depend on a person going through a huge backlog as a low priority. Requests not being handled for weeks is unacceptable. They could simply push the Git tags and stop dealing with it.
They're obligated to fulfill our requests. We need each of the Beta tags because we port and test in advance. If they don't want to deal with our endless requests for each release, they can simply push the tags to Git. They chose to waste the time of several employees on this.
For Motorola devices, we plan to prepare our releases early and have everything ready for major Android updates at launch. We should be able to simply push the code to our own repositories for major Android releases. We'll need to host all the AOSP Git repositories ourselves.
It's incredibly backwards and very hard to understand why they want to drive away people from using their devices. Nexus and Pixel devices had a lot of Android enthusiasts using them who are increasingly being driven away by these decisions. They're driving a lot of people away to using iPhones rather than simply using other Android devices. The management making these decisions largely use iPhones, not the products they're gradually stripping of their actual advantages.
Per the original post, they are. The GPLv2 does not place any stipulation on schedules and deadlines. It doesn't have to explicitly specify any time constraint for it to be required to provide it in a reasonable amount of time. Law is not code and doesn't depend on everything being explicitly written down. Google is a massive tech company with enormous resources. They clearly made these changes to make it a hassle to obtain the sources. By not quickly responding to the requests and dealing with it, they're artificially delaying access and that's a violation of the license.
Aside from that, not providing it in the form of Git repositories is not providing it in the preferred form for modifying the source code. Android's tooling is based around dealing with Git repositories. Even if they strip all the history, it should still be tags in Git repositories so stuff works properly and it's split up into separate repositories in the way they did themselves. The build system uses Git revisions. It has a fallback to use a metadata file which they provide.
GPLv2 says it requires giving source code to anyone you distribute the software to.
Per the original post, they are. The GPLv2 does not place any stipulation on schedules and deadlines.
iirc it must be in a timely manner. Weeks is not reasonable
The GPLv2 does not place any stipulation on schedules and deadlines.
oh, I misremembered then
It doesn't have to explicitly specify any time constraint for it to be required to provide it in a reasonable amount of time. Law is not code and doesn't depend on everything being explicitly written down. Google is a massive tech company with enormous resources. They clearly made these changes to make it a hassle to obtain the sources. By not quickly responding to the requests and dealing with it, they're artificially delaying access and that's a violation of the license.
It doesn't have to explicitly specify any time constraint for it to be required to provide it in a reasonable amount of time. Law is not code and doesn't depend on everything being explicitly written down. Google is a massive tech company with enormous resources. They clearly made these changes to make it a hassle to obtain the sources. By not quickly responding to the requests and dealing with it, they're artificially delaying access and that's a violation of the license.
the license says this about redistribution of derived work (section 3):
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
it doesn’t have any time constraint, but i think (and i think @GrapheneOS thinks) google drive may be not a “medium customarily used for software interchange”
GPLv2 says it needs to be provided using a medium customarily used for software interchange. Google Drive is not customarily used for providing source code. Google is purposely making it a hassle using poor software for it. GPLv2 does not need to explicitly state any specific time requirement for it to be required to provide the sources in a reasonable time period. A court would consider their resources and tech capabilities. This is one of the largest tech companies in the world.
It will be better for the devices supporting GrapheneOS.
Under the circumstances, it feels unlikely that Pixels will continue to be as easy as they have been.
It shouldn't be that way but I'm sure many companies are know for that, Motorla is definitely one
Is Motorola known for that? Not Xaomi?
Well let's also hope you can unlock the bootloader without jumping thru hoops with Motorola customer support and forced wait times and shit before you can unlock you're device like Motorola is known for
I took a look at Motorola's current offerings, and there are dealbreakers with everything they offer. I'm not interested in anything with a folding screen, but I need over 250gb storage. I'm hoping the planned device has different specs.
This reminds me, how's is the Motorola partnership going on?
maybe they just want to challenge themselves
yes, they have a partnership for doing exactly that
Will there be Motorola Smartphones with GrapheneOS preinstalled available? Thanks in advance.
Is there any estimate date yet for the launch of your collaboration with Motorola?
Not that long ago, I couldn't see myself purchasing a Motorola phone. Their reputation for poor OS support (security updates and OS updates) made purchasing one of their phones a non-starter. Now, with the GrapheneOS partnership, I can't wait to purchase a Motorola/GrapheneOS phone. I am enjoying my Pixel 8a with GrapheneOS, but the hardware is a bit limiting. I definitely need more storage space.
any idea when we can expect model names / specs?
when will the Motorola devices be out? And do you have a cost yet? Thank you for everything you do :)
The initial devices with GrapheneOS support should be available in 2027. The initial devices will be flagships so they'll be higher end hardware than Pixels at a higher price. Lower end devices will take more time to meet our requirements since the updates and security features aren't as good. It's mostly due to how Qualcomm handles it. The latest Snapdragon flagships have the best security features. We'll also need Motorola to start paying them for longer updates below flagships.
Thanks so much!! Keep up the great work you guys do :)
when do you change the recommendation for devices on your website?
i'm so unbelievably hype for the motorola devices
are there some members of the grapheneos-team who like the born-again trend of upcomming qwerty phones? — as some of the hype also got its shape from ppl and ultimately clicks adding a keyboard to a closed flip-foldable, it seems like there could be some human engineering and convincing some peaple at certain phone manufacturer that it would be so so great to have a graphene qwerty phone 🌚🌚
And... 🌚 a 3.5" screen does visualize less of your private information than a 6" screen XD
Reminds me of some "open source" apps in China that use Tencent QQ and Baidu Netdisk for distribution. That does not necessarily make them non-free, but somehow defeats the purpose of being open source, since users have to install other proprietary apps on their device and register accounts associated with real ID to get them. No ethical FLOSS developer should ever do that. And apparently we can't expect that from Google.
We're probably just going to host them as Git repositories without a whole social coding platform. If we want to take pull requests ourselves without GitHub then we could host Gerrit ourselves.
gerrit 
gerrit's really good i actually stan
Gerrit’s actually very nice. I’ve used it and it works well.
i know everyone who i look up to in this space says that but it's so daunting
Fair.
@GrapheneOS But they WANT to make things inconvenient step-by-step... Until it's technically allowed but practically hits a roadblock planned off-public.
Or is it Gemini? (
)
On a separate note... Someone please tell me what are the exact things stopping a more open OS like linux from being mainstream (modem drivers, camera drivers, what else?)
Or... an AOSP derivative or clone COMPLETELY independent. IK has something to do with the modem and SIM-card and camera drivers, what are those and what else?
a few hundred thousand person hours and the funding for it
plus vendor buy-in. It's very hard to make a driver without documentation on the hardware and that's usually not freely available
banks and other apps locking themselves when not running on a "secure version of Android" or depending on non-OS features like Play Services
I smell a forgejo instance. A trustworthy one~
@GrapheneOS well what the heck
@GrapheneOS So Google already was on the level of some random BSP vendor? What a garbage. I hope some will end up at least to checkin each new tarball, so there's at least some kind of diff.
@GrapheneOS Feels like an active choice, doesn't it?
@GrapheneOS how are you guys planning for the day when Google completely stops providing anything?
@GrapheneOS they’ve started numerous times that other companies that depend on Android would inevitably fill in the gaps
@GrapheneOS if I understand correctly, #grapheneos is relying on other companies to fill the gaps?
@GrapheneOS I was thinking, that is what they at Google want to do: pushing the limits.
@GrapheneOS wtf
@GrapheneOS How exactly are they in violation of GPLv2?
@GrapheneOS it requires giving source code to anyone you distribute the software to.
@GrapheneOS Per the original post, they are.
@GrapheneOS iirc it must be in a timely manner. Weeks is not reasonable
@GrapheneOS The GPLv2 does not place any stipulation on schedules and deadlines.
@GrapheneOS oh, I misremembered then
