4 ms·

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

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.

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.