4 ms·

Little hard to be open source when your source is closed and you don't let anyone look at. Android source is released sometime after the product has been out to

by nathanb 16y ago

Little hard to be open source when your source is closed and you don't let anyone look at. Android source is released sometime after the product has been out to market. Android is only open to the extent that it benefits Google, not the extent that it benefits the community. I'm not saying that this is the wrong way to go about it...were I a Google exec and responsible to shareholders, I would have difficulty justifying a truly open process. But at this point, "open" has become a bullet point on a product box to attract a certain demographic.

warfangle 16y ago
You are confusing Open Source software and Free Software. Read the GP again.
- nathanb 16y ago
  Can Google plausibly claim to be OSI-compliant on Honeycomb when they have released the product without the source? I like to think that I understand the difference between the two, but I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    > Can Google plausibly claim to be OSI-compliant on Honeycomb when they have released the product without the source? The GPL requires that sort of thing, most other open source licenses do not. The Apache license covers what you can do with the source when it has been given to you. > I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source. Microsoft could release the source code to Windows tomorrow but say you have no right to modify it or distribute the modifications. Just because you've been given the source doesn't mean it's open source. Furthermore, if you haven't been given the source, there isn't anything to say about it. In this case, you are not entitled to the source just because you have the binary.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      The GPL requires that sort of thing It's a gray area. If you accompany your binary release with a "written offer", you can actually postpone the source release. The GPL doesn't give a deadline either. People are trying to make this a licensing issue, when it definitely it is not. You can always fork Android, and Google cannot sue you for patent infringement (courtesy of the Apache license). The problem then is that the fish doesn't come free anymore -- which is the main gripe of people (i.e. the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open). As for the "users cannot do whatever they want with their devices" -- they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?). If openness is really what people need, open devices will win because it is a free market (the Nexus S is doing well in my country btw).
      - wvenable 16y ago
        > People are trying to make this a licensing issue, when it definitely it is not. I agree. In fact, that was my original argument. > the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open. I don't actually care if the development is not done in the open. What I actually care about is being ability to modify and install alternative versions of the software on my devices. I have had to throw away a lot of perfectly good hardware because the software was old and outdated with no way to update it. I've also had to deal with bugs with no way to fix them. Of course, none of this is Google's problem because they don't make the hardware. > they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?). The purpose of Free Software to build hardware? I think you've got something wrong there. As a programmer, I don't build hardware. I build software. > If openness is really what people need, open devices will win No, because most people are not programmers (or highly technical) and therefore have no need or ability to run alternative software. So no, openness will not win out. This appeal to the masses is not a good argument.
        bad_user 16y ago
        The purpose of Free Software to build hardware? No, you got it wrong. The purpose of Free Software is to escape from the monopolies created by proprietary software (i.e. only the parent company of such software can provide support and fix it for you); which is not the same with other products, like cars, for which you can always find a local repair-shop. So even if normal people are not developers or hardware builders, they can rely on local businesses that may be cheaper, while also helping the local community. A valid point nonetheless. Search for any of RMS's talks and he'll bring this point up. No, because most people are not programmers I've got dozens of non-programmers as friends. Many of them own iPhones. All of them know about jailbreaking, many of them did it -- some with net-tutorials, some by paying local smarty-pants that unlock phones for a living.

by nathanb 16y ago

warfangle 16y ago

You are confusing Open Source software and Free Software. Read the GP again.

nathanb 16y ago
Can Google plausibly claim to be OSI-compliant on Honeycomb when they have released the product without the source? I like to think that I understand the difference between the two, but I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source.
- wvenable 16y ago
  > Can Google plausibly claim to be OSI-compliant on Honeycomb when they have released the product without the source? The GPL requires that sort of thing, most other open source licenses do not. The Apache license covers what you can do with the source when it has been given to you. > I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source. Microsoft could release the source code to Windows tomorrow but say you have no right to modify it or distribute the modifications. Just because you've been given the source doesn't mean it's open source. Furthermore, if you haven't been given the source, there isn't anything to say about it. In this case, you are not entitled to the source just because you have the binary.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    The GPL requires that sort of thing It's a gray area. If you accompany your binary release with a "written offer", you can actually postpone the source release. The GPL doesn't give a deadline either. People are trying to make this a licensing issue, when it definitely it is not. You can always fork Android, and Google cannot sue you for patent infringement (courtesy of the Apache license). The problem then is that the fish doesn't come free anymore -- which is the main gripe of people (i.e. the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open). As for the "users cannot do whatever they want with their devices" -- they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?). If openness is really what people need, open devices will win because it is a free market (the Nexus S is doing well in my country btw).
    - wvenable 16y ago
      > People are trying to make this a licensing issue, when it definitely it is not. I agree. In fact, that was my original argument. > the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open. I don't actually care if the development is not done in the open. What I actually care about is being ability to modify and install alternative versions of the software on my devices. I have had to throw away a lot of perfectly good hardware because the software was old and outdated with no way to update it. I've also had to deal with bugs with no way to fix them. Of course, none of this is Google's problem because they don't make the hardware. > they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?). The purpose of Free Software to build hardware? I think you've got something wrong there. As a programmer, I don't build hardware. I build software. > If openness is really what people need, open devices will win No, because most people are not programmers (or highly technical) and therefore have no need or ability to run alternative software. So no, openness will not win out. This appeal to the masses is not a good argument.
      - bad_user 16y ago
        The purpose of Free Software to build hardware? No, you got it wrong. The purpose of Free Software is to escape from the monopolies created by proprietary software (i.e. only the parent company of such software can provide support and fix it for you); which is not the same with other products, like cars, for which you can always find a local repair-shop. So even if normal people are not developers or hardware builders, they can rely on local businesses that may be cheaper, while also helping the local community. A valid point nonetheless. Search for any of RMS's talks and he'll bring this point up. No, because most people are not programmers I've got dozens of non-programmers as friends. Many of them own iPhones. All of them know about jailbreaking, many of them did it -- some with net-tutorials, some by paying local smarty-pants that unlock phones for a living.