5 ms·

No, public source tree and a process for outsider commits are critical for proper open source projects. Otherwise, while you have the code, your only choice is

by jaaron 16y ago

No, public source tree and a process for outsider commits are critical for proper open source projects. Otherwise, while you have the code, your only choice is to fork, not collaborate. The code may be OSI compliantly licensed, but the community, the decision process, and the opportunity to actually make a difference are closed.

kenjackson 16y ago
"Otherwise, while you have the code, your only choice is to fork, not collaborate" If you look at this the right way, every checkin is a new fork. There's no such thing as a mainline branch. There's absolutely no reason you can't simply fork some branch of Android and start working on it and tell everyone to work from your branch. Each developer has the choice, including Google to use your branch or checkin to a different fork. Again, AFAIK, Google is not preventing anyone from branching and checking into a new branch. This is fundamentally no different than Google allow public commits, but then branching after each of their checkins. To put it another way, if you were to take the 2.2 branch of Android and you forked then contributed an incredible 7" tablet UI experience that Google nor Apple could ever match, you may have forced Google to begin picking up your branch. There's is nothing stopping any of this from happening, except the apparent attitude that Google needs to bend over backwards to accomodate people who haven't shown any inclination nor aptitude to an interesting contribution. Goodness, I can't believe I'm defending Google.
- aboodman 16y ago
  The point that Joe is making is that people can't participate in the official, Google-supported, widely distributed version of the code. They can fork the code and do whatever they want, but that fork doesn't have a lot of value if it doesn't have distribution. They can fix a bug, but they can only fix it for themselves, not their customers who get Android through retail stores. You may of course say "Google has no obligation to let people contribute to their distribution". And you'd be right. But this is like saying "I am under no obligation to smile and say hello when you enter the elevator". You'd be right. But people do it anyway because it makes the world a better place. Likewise, Joe is saying it would be nice if Google allowed people to contribute directly to the main distribution of Android. They're under no obligation to do so, but it sure would be cool. I hope this clears things up. Full disclosure: I work on Chrome at Google which has some of the features Joe is asking for in Android. I also wish Android had them, but I have no special insight into why they're missing.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    Personally I hate fake smiles. Also, try contributing to the Linux kernel.
    - pmjordan 16y ago
      Also, try contributing to the Linux kernel. I did, and now it includes some of my code. What's your point? Their standards for code quality are high, but let's face it, the kernel wouldn't have reached 10MLOC if it was written like Wordpress. Android won't accept your patches at all. Speaking of the kernel, the Android project hasn't been very good about merging back their kernel patches. Getting better, but they're now pretty far from mainline.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    I agree those things would be nice. But that's not the issue. The issue is if Android is open or not. I personally think it would be nice if nothing shipped with the GPL as it restricts my freedom, but I won't claim gcc is not open. The issue isn't if Android can improve along a given vector. Rather it is is Android a closed platform because there exists a branch that doesn't take public contributions or have a public tree. I don't think so.

by jaaron 16y ago

kenjackson 16y ago

"Otherwise, while you have the code, your only choice is to fork, not collaborate" If you look at this the right way, every checkin is a new fork. There's no such thing as a mainline branch. There's absolutely no reason you can't simply fork some branch of Android and start working on it and tell everyone to work from your branch. Each developer has the choice, including Google to use your branch or checkin to a different fork. Again, AFAIK, Google is not preventing anyone from branching and checking into a new branch. This is fundamentally no different than Google allow public commits, but then branching after each of their checkins. To put it another way, if you were to take the 2.2 branch of Android and you forked then contributed an incredible 7" tablet UI experience that Google nor Apple could ever match, you may have forced Google to begin picking up your branch. There's is nothing stopping any of this from happening, except the apparent attitude that Google needs to bend over backwards to accomodate people who haven't shown any inclination nor aptitude to an interesting contribution. Goodness, I can't believe I'm defending Google.

aboodman 16y ago
The point that Joe is making is that people can't participate in the official, Google-supported, widely distributed version of the code. They can fork the code and do whatever they want, but that fork doesn't have a lot of value if it doesn't have distribution. They can fix a bug, but they can only fix it for themselves, not their customers who get Android through retail stores. You may of course say "Google has no obligation to let people contribute to their distribution". And you'd be right. But this is like saying "I am under no obligation to smile and say hello when you enter the elevator". You'd be right. But people do it anyway because it makes the world a better place. Likewise, Joe is saying it would be nice if Google allowed people to contribute directly to the main distribution of Android. They're under no obligation to do so, but it sure would be cool. I hope this clears things up. Full disclosure: I work on Chrome at Google which has some of the features Joe is asking for in Android. I also wish Android had them, but I have no special insight into why they're missing.
- bad_user 16y ago
  Personally I hate fake smiles. Also, try contributing to the Linux kernel.
  - pmjordan 16y ago
    Also, try contributing to the Linux kernel. I did, and now it includes some of my code. What's your point? Their standards for code quality are high, but let's face it, the kernel wouldn't have reached 10MLOC if it was written like Wordpress. Android won't accept your patches at all. Speaking of the kernel, the Android project hasn't been very good about merging back their kernel patches. Getting better, but they're now pretty far from mainline.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  I agree those things would be nice. But that's not the issue. The issue is if Android is open or not. I personally think it would be nice if nothing shipped with the GPL as it restricts my freedom, but I won't claim gcc is not open. The issue isn't if Android can improve along a given vector. Rather it is is Android a closed platform because there exists a branch that doesn't take public contributions or have a public tree. I don't think so.