4 ms·

I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be

by beej71 16y ago

I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be some time in the relatively near future. Terms of open-source licenses have been adhered to. It sounds like they probably incurred some code debt rushing this out, and they want to clean it up before people start running with it. They themselves have said it doesn't even run on phones--to appreciate why that's bad, just imagine what Gruber would have written about it.

greattypo 16y ago
I agree with what you said, but I don't think that's the part that has people most concerned. It's more about stuff like this: According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with Google's business interests. For example, the article says that Google attempted to block Verizon from shipping an Android device with Microsoft's Bing search engine.
- blinkingled 16y ago
  Hmm. They did? Is there a proof to that? Because at Dive into Mobile conference last year Rubin said something totally different on that topic - to the effect of we don't care if some VZW phones are shipped with Bing and the market will sort it out - people will flock to the best experience.
  - gonzo 16y ago
    That was before Facebook and Amazon became threats to Google's hegemony.
- beej71 16y ago
  I can see how that might trouble some people, but the Compatibility Definition Document has always existed, hasn't it? You can't just release anything at all and slap the Android trademark on it and use the store, right? You have always had to operated within Google's restrictions if you wanted to do that. So... why are people surprised?
  - trythis 16y ago
    Does the CDD disallow using a non-Google search engine? A quick perusal of the latest CDD suggests that isn't the case. My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone.
    - patrickaljord 16y ago
      > My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone. Well, if your phone comes with Bing and it says "with Google", isn't that kind of lying? Also some phones have been locked on Bing so people couldn't even revert to Google.
      - trythis 16y ago
        Afaik, you're supposedly free to ship a phone with Bing as long as it doesn't say "with Google". I assume the BusinessWeek report is saying that Google's trying to block Bing even if the phone doesn't say "with Google", otherwise this wouldn't be newsworthy. But maybe that's not the case, and Verizon's just trying to raise a stink. Unfortunately, Rubin's response doesn't exactly clarify things.
    - fpgeek 16y ago
      I don't know what the CDD says about non-Google search engines, but I will point out that Bing is in the Android Market. Exactly how much more open does Google need to be to competitors' products and services?
bonch 16y ago
If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes. In other words, if you're going to position yourself as a champion for openness, expect to get called out for not following the spirit of the idea. Especially if you're obstructing people from modifying your platform to use a competitor's product, such as Bing. That's the most alarming accusation, really, and could land them in hot water.
- beej71 16y ago
  > If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes. IMHO, for a for-profit company, they're doing a really great job of keeping the source open, especially when compared to their competition. And remember how open they are required to be, which is "not at all". They could stop releasing source tomorrow, and, short of feeling morally superior, there is nothing anyone could do about it. Is Google open by RMS's standards? If we just jump there, we can settle the terminology issue on the spot. No, they are not open, so now we can just work with what we have, which is "some open source under different licenses, and a lot of closed source". But if someone doesn't like the restrictions on Android, they do have the option to fork it into a new OS. That's the open source deal, and Rubin spelled out the details in a tweet that a great many people made fun of at the time, but turned out to accurately describe their stance. Use the kernel source under the GPL's terms; use the trademark and store and non-GPL'd source under Google's terms. When Justice gets involved, there are problems, for sure. But saying, "Hey, you can't use our trademark while pimping our main competitor's product, and if you do pimp our main competitor's product, don't expect us to be in a rush to show you our in-progress code" doesn't strike me as particularly horrific behavior. But that's just my opinion. The big question is: would Android be a coherent platform without Google's restrictions? And if not, would Google even work on it?
  - 16y ago

by beej71 16y ago

greattypo 16y ago

I agree with what you said, but I don't think that's the part that has people most concerned. It's more about stuff like this: According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with Google's business interests. For example, the article says that Google attempted to block Verizon from shipping an Android device with Microsoft's Bing search engine.

blinkingled 16y ago
Hmm. They did? Is there a proof to that? Because at Dive into Mobile conference last year Rubin said something totally different on that topic - to the effect of we don't care if some VZW phones are shipped with Bing and the market will sort it out - people will flock to the best experience.
- gonzo 16y ago
  That was before Facebook and Amazon became threats to Google's hegemony.
beej71 16y ago
I can see how that might trouble some people, but the Compatibility Definition Document has always existed, hasn't it? You can't just release anything at all and slap the Android trademark on it and use the store, right? You have always had to operated within Google's restrictions if you wanted to do that. So... why are people surprised?
- trythis 16y ago
  Does the CDD disallow using a non-Google search engine? A quick perusal of the latest CDD suggests that isn't the case. My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone.
  - patrickaljord 16y ago
    > My understanding is that you have to use Google's search engine if you want to slap "with Google" on the back of your phone. Well, if your phone comes with Bing and it says "with Google", isn't that kind of lying? Also some phones have been locked on Bing so people couldn't even revert to Google.
    - trythis 16y ago
      Afaik, you're supposedly free to ship a phone with Bing as long as it doesn't say "with Google". I assume the BusinessWeek report is saying that Google's trying to block Bing even if the phone doesn't say "with Google", otherwise this wouldn't be newsworthy. But maybe that's not the case, and Verizon's just trying to raise a stink. Unfortunately, Rubin's response doesn't exactly clarify things.
  - fpgeek 16y ago
    I don't know what the CDD says about non-Google search engines, but I will point out that Bing is in the Android Market. Exactly how much more open does Google need to be to competitors' products and services?

bonch 16y ago

If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes. In other words, if you're going to position yourself as a champion for openness, expect to get called out for not following the spirit of the idea. Especially if you're obstructing people from modifying your platform to use a competitor's product, such as Bing. That's the most alarming accusation, really, and could land them in hot water.

beej71 16y ago
> If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes. IMHO, for a for-profit company, they're doing a really great job of keeping the source open, especially when compared to their competition. And remember how open they are required to be, which is "not at all". They could stop releasing source tomorrow, and, short of feeling morally superior, there is nothing anyone could do about it. Is Google open by RMS's standards? If we just jump there, we can settle the terminology issue on the spot. No, they are not open, so now we can just work with what we have, which is "some open source under different licenses, and a lot of closed source". But if someone doesn't like the restrictions on Android, they do have the option to fork it into a new OS. That's the open source deal, and Rubin spelled out the details in a tweet that a great many people made fun of at the time, but turned out to accurately describe their stance. Use the kernel source under the GPL's terms; use the trademark and store and non-GPL'd source under Google's terms. When Justice gets involved, there are problems, for sure. But saying, "Hey, you can't use our trademark while pimping our main competitor's product, and if you do pimp our main competitor's product, don't expect us to be in a rush to show you our in-progress code" doesn't strike me as particularly horrific behavior. But that's just my opinion. The big question is: would Android be a coherent platform without Google's restrictions? And if not, would Google even work on it?
- 16y ago