3 ms·

I cannot believe you accuse me of being "completely wrong" about what open source means. I would suggest you go to http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www

I cannot believe you accuse me of being "completely wrong" about what open source means. I would suggest you go to http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www.opensource.org/osd.html and read the open source definition. Your claim that "open source" drops the requirement of user access to source code and freedom to redistribute is false. Now look at the official android website at http://www.android.com/about/ http://www.android.com/about/ and notice the quote "Android is open source". Honeycomb does not currently meet the definition.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
The post I replied to which said "I, the user" was ambiguous, though I think I caught your meaning so I'll just quote your other post: "However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here [...] you are surely aware that free software is about the user of the software being able to access the source code, modify it, and redistribute it. None of these freedoms (which are also part of the open source definition) are currently given to purchasers of Honeycomb tablets." I think it's clear here that your ignoring the key difference between GPL and Apache software like Android. If Android was GPL (and written at least partly by someone other than Google) then Motorola would need to release the source alongside any product containing it including any changes or improvements they made, as they are required to do for the Linux portion. But Android isn't GPL, so they don't have to release the code they use. Google have released the code at roughly that time in the past, and it's that release, not the timing, which makes Android in general "Open Source". They say they'll do so with Honeycomb once they've finished the phone parts, and at that point Honeycomb will be Open Source too. Feel free to say that the diff between Froyo and Honeycomb isn't Open Source until they release it. That's technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it is just plain wrong to bring the timing of the Xoom launch into things, or complain that Android as a whole suddenly stops being open source because more recent changes haven't been published yet. Neither of those issues are covered by the term Open Source. You might have better luck comparing against a benchmark for open governance as proposed by Simon Phipps, but any issues for Android under those rubrics have been there all along: http://opensource.com/life/11/2/open-rule-governance-benchmark http://opensource.com/life/11/2/open-rule-governance-benchma...
- mycroftiv 16y ago
  I know perfectly well that Android is not under the GPL, and nowhere in my posts have I implied that it is, and I have also not implied that Google is under any legal obligations whatsoever. The article which this entire discussion is based on is simply about whether or not Google is actually following through on their previous statements about Android, and about the fact that, as you just admitted, Honeycomb is not currently open source. I don't understand the distinctions you are trying to draw involving "the timing of the Xoom launch" because that is the essence of the issue: Honeycomb based devices are being sold without the source code being made available to the user, and Google states they are doing this on purpose and the situation will remain that way for some time. This is not compatible with the term "open source". The statement "Android is open source" is not the same as the statement "Older versions of Android are open source, but the most recent version is not."
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    If the Xoom had been delayed until after Honeycomb was open sourced in say 2 months, would that change the open source status of Honeycomb right now? Obviously no. The timing of the code release is what triggers that change. Honeycomb was exactly as open source the day after the Xoom went on sale as it was the day before. So why is the timing of the hardware release relevant? I thought you were getting confused with the GPL, in which case it would be relevant. Now that we've cleared up that you know Android isn't GPL I have no idea why you think the timing of the binary release matters. I'd hazard a guess that you think people should act like the GPL applies to their Apache licensed code in order to be considered sufficiently "Open Source" by your definition, which differs from the standard meaning of simply releasing the code under an Open Source licence, which applies to the vast majority of Android code, and will soon apply to the Honeycomb code. At which point they'll start work on the next version (Jelly?), and presumably you'll once again believe that Android isn't Open Source since having any code in development and not yet released fails your test. Or do they only fail your Open Source test if they ship a Jelly-powered device first? What if they ship a Jelly SDK image to run in a VM? Does your idea of when they have to have released source follow the GPL exactly, or does it differ in any important ways?

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

The post I replied to which said "I, the user" was ambiguous, though I think I caught your meaning so I'll just quote your other post: "However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here [...] you are surely aware that free software is about the user of the software being able to access the source code, modify it, and redistribute it. None of these freedoms (which are also part of the open source definition) are currently given to purchasers of Honeycomb tablets." I think it's clear here that your ignoring the key difference between GPL and Apache software like Android. If Android was GPL (and written at least partly by someone other than Google) then Motorola would need to release the source alongside any product containing it including any changes or improvements they made, as they are required to do for the Linux portion. But Android isn't GPL, so they don't have to release the code they use. Google have released the code at roughly that time in the past, and it's that release, not the timing, which makes Android in general "Open Source". They say they'll do so with Honeycomb once they've finished the phone parts, and at that point Honeycomb will be Open Source too. Feel free to say that the diff between Froyo and Honeycomb isn't Open Source until they release it. That's technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it is just plain wrong to bring the timing of the Xoom launch into things, or complain that Android as a whole suddenly stops being open source because more recent changes haven't been published yet. Neither of those issues are covered by the term Open Source. You might have better luck comparing against a benchmark for open governance as proposed by Simon Phipps, but any issues for Android under those rubrics have been there all along: http://opensource.com/life/11/2/open-rule-governance-benchmark http://opensource.com/life/11/2/open-rule-governance-benchma...

mycroftiv 16y ago
I know perfectly well that Android is not under the GPL, and nowhere in my posts have I implied that it is, and I have also not implied that Google is under any legal obligations whatsoever. The article which this entire discussion is based on is simply about whether or not Google is actually following through on their previous statements about Android, and about the fact that, as you just admitted, Honeycomb is not currently open source. I don't understand the distinctions you are trying to draw involving "the timing of the Xoom launch" because that is the essence of the issue: Honeycomb based devices are being sold without the source code being made available to the user, and Google states they are doing this on purpose and the situation will remain that way for some time. This is not compatible with the term "open source". The statement "Android is open source" is not the same as the statement "Older versions of Android are open source, but the most recent version is not."
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  If the Xoom had been delayed until after Honeycomb was open sourced in say 2 months, would that change the open source status of Honeycomb right now? Obviously no. The timing of the code release is what triggers that change. Honeycomb was exactly as open source the day after the Xoom went on sale as it was the day before. So why is the timing of the hardware release relevant? I thought you were getting confused with the GPL, in which case it would be relevant. Now that we've cleared up that you know Android isn't GPL I have no idea why you think the timing of the binary release matters. I'd hazard a guess that you think people should act like the GPL applies to their Apache licensed code in order to be considered sufficiently "Open Source" by your definition, which differs from the standard meaning of simply releasing the code under an Open Source licence, which applies to the vast majority of Android code, and will soon apply to the Honeycomb code. At which point they'll start work on the next version (Jelly?), and presumably you'll once again believe that Android isn't Open Source since having any code in development and not yet released fails your test. Or do they only fail your Open Source test if they ship a Jelly-powered device first? What if they ship a Jelly SDK image to run in a VM? Does your idea of when they have to have released source follow the GPL exactly, or does it differ in any important ways?