3 ms·

How is that relevant when they are giving the latest source to people they approve?

rbanffy 16y ago
It's their source. You are free to pick the last released version and improve it yourself. The source they didn't release may not be completely theirs (we can't know this because we don't have it) and before releasing it under an open source license they may be required to clean it up.
- rbarooah 16y ago
  If it's not theirs, how can they give it to some of their approved partners?
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Android is Google's. They don't have to release anything except the kernel (which is a lot already). They can give it to whoever they think will improve it and make it more popular. The kernel is GPL, but the rest is Apache. Google can keep it to themselves and their preferred partners forever. It's their software and they own it.
    - rbarooah 16y ago
      Exactly - they own it, and they are free to give it to whoever they like and withhold it from whoever they like. What part of that isn't about controlling other players?
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        Are you under the impression Google can take 2.3 away from anyone? They own it and they can't. What they are doing is saying they won't release 3.x for now source and not really disclosing the reasons. Anything can be behind that decision, including the inclusion of non-Google code in the specific products. I prefer to think along those lines.
        rbarooah 16y ago
        I'm not under that impression. I am under the impression that they have given the 3.x source to some people and not to others, thus choosing who gets to use it. Normally we refer to that as 'control'. They didn't say Android 2.3 is open. They said that Android was open and the purpose was so that no one entity could control the innovation of other players, and yet that is exactly what they are doing. You seem to be defending Google on the basis of their freedoms. If you read what I've written, you'll see that I haven't argued they don't have the right to do what they are doing. I haven't even argued that it's bad. I am merely pointing out that they have gone back on what they said. You haven't said anything that refutes this.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        > they have gone back on what they said. Point me, please, where did they say Honeycomb will not be opened. As it is now, it probably has some code that went in to meet launch deadlines and that prevents a full release. They may also want to tidy things up before pushing it out because if they push out a defective API (and there are lots of new APIs in HC) they will have a lot of heat when they fix it.
        rbarooah 16y ago
        That has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said. I'll leave it to you to read the thread.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        You complain Android is not open when a lot of Android is (there are closed source apps - like Gmail and Google Maps - that run on Android) and a small part that's not yet (Honeycomb - Gingerbread) without any definitive announcement on whether it will be exclusive to their initial partners or not (with a strong impression this is temporary). Everyone can download and build most of what goes into an Android phone or tablet. Most important on the software freedom (to programmers, that is) you can fork it, build your devices and sell them without ever asking Google for their blessing (much like they hadn't to ask Linus for his blessing when they used Linux for Android's core). Unfortunately, for users (me included - I own an Android and a Palm Pre) I cannot demand source code from you with the exception of the parts that are GPL'ed and thus I am not effectively independent from the software provider. I don't quite like this - I'd love to be able to build Gingerbread and burn it into my Android handset (I'd prefer to keep the Palm as it is), perhaps, even building the parts above Bionic and grafting it on top of iOS, just for the kicks (unfortunately, Apple doesn't like that and, in order to distribute this to other iOS users I'd have to ask for their blessing, which would never come). You are right. Honeycomb is not free right now. And that's what I don't quite like about Apache-like licenses: the developer can withhold software from me. But I am convinced this is a temporary stance and soon enough not only other manufacturers will have full access but I will too.

It's their source. You are free to pick the last released version and improve it yourself. The source they didn't release may not be completely theirs (we can't know this because we don't have it) and before releasing it under an open source license they may be required to clean it up.

rbarooah 16y ago
If it's not theirs, how can they give it to some of their approved partners?
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Android is Google's. They don't have to release anything except the kernel (which is a lot already). They can give it to whoever they think will improve it and make it more popular. The kernel is GPL, but the rest is Apache. Google can keep it to themselves and their preferred partners forever. It's their software and they own it.
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    Exactly - they own it, and they are free to give it to whoever they like and withhold it from whoever they like. What part of that isn't about controlling other players?
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Are you under the impression Google can take 2.3 away from anyone? They own it and they can't. What they are doing is saying they won't release 3.x for now source and not really disclosing the reasons. Anything can be behind that decision, including the inclusion of non-Google code in the specific products. I prefer to think along those lines.
      - rbarooah 16y ago
        I'm not under that impression. I am under the impression that they have given the 3.x source to some people and not to others, thus choosing who gets to use it. Normally we refer to that as 'control'. They didn't say Android 2.3 is open. They said that Android was open and the purpose was so that no one entity could control the innovation of other players, and yet that is exactly what they are doing. You seem to be defending Google on the basis of their freedoms. If you read what I've written, you'll see that I haven't argued they don't have the right to do what they are doing. I haven't even argued that it's bad. I am merely pointing out that they have gone back on what they said. You haven't said anything that refutes this.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        > they have gone back on what they said. Point me, please, where did they say Honeycomb will not be opened. As it is now, it probably has some code that went in to meet launch deadlines and that prevents a full release. They may also want to tidy things up before pushing it out because if they push out a defective API (and there are lots of new APIs in HC) they will have a lot of heat when they fix it.
        rbarooah 16y ago
        That has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said. I'll leave it to you to read the thread.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        You complain Android is not open when a lot of Android is (there are closed source apps - like Gmail and Google Maps - that run on Android) and a small part that's not yet (Honeycomb - Gingerbread) without any definitive announcement on whether it will be exclusive to their initial partners or not (with a strong impression this is temporary). Everyone can download and build most of what goes into an Android phone or tablet. Most important on the software freedom (to programmers, that is) you can fork it, build your devices and sell them without ever asking Google for their blessing (much like they hadn't to ask Linus for his blessing when they used Linux for Android's core). Unfortunately, for users (me included - I own an Android and a Palm Pre) I cannot demand source code from you with the exception of the parts that are GPL'ed and thus I am not effectively independent from the software provider. I don't quite like this - I'd love to be able to build Gingerbread and burn it into my Android handset (I'd prefer to keep the Palm as it is), perhaps, even building the parts above Bionic and grafting it on top of iOS, just for the kicks (unfortunately, Apple doesn't like that and, in order to distribute this to other iOS users I'd have to ask for their blessing, which would never come). You are right. Honeycomb is not free right now. And that's what I don't quite like about Apache-like licenses: the developer can withhold software from me. But I am convinced this is a temporary stance and soon enough not only other manufacturers will have full access but I will too.