I don’t understand why Google didn’t just made Android closed source. They would’ve made custom roms impossible and therefore more able to control and spy on it’s users. Why did Google made Android open source, while Microsoft’s Windows is still closed source to this day?

  • minorninth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Android doesn’t have to be open-source. Just because it uses the Linux kernel doesn’t mean the rest of the OS has to be open-source.

    Android is open-source because Google wanted it to be. They wanted to monetize it differently, not by charging money for the OS.

    • Yubishi@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Doesn’t this contradict GPL? Since Android was built on top of the Linux kernel.

      • minorninth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. The GPL for Linux applies to the Linux kernel.

        GPL only says that one particular program has to stay open. It doesn’t say that everything else on the same computer has to be GPL.

        Most Linux distros include software with a wide variety of licensed. Many people run commercial software on top of Linux.