8 ms·

Google to Android Developers: 'Do Not Develop in the Open'

95 points by pushingbits 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago
As an untrained reader, I find this very strange. Not open sourcing your products could be a reason to forbid a merger, because you could gain an advantage over your competitors? Really? Is it illegal to be better than your competitors? It almost sounds as if there was a law that companies have to open source their products, which I am pretty sure does not exist (IANAL, though).
- chalst 15y ago
  Google does open source Android. The point is about when they make a public release of the source. They are only obliged to release the source when they release the code to the public, and the point is that they don't do this any earlier than they have to. This does make the Android development process less than open. It does not stop Android being open source. The relationship to the court case is that Google's development process is very much at question in the issue of whether there is a violation of Oracle's IP.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    I don't think they are obliged to do anything.
- zupatol 15y ago
  Word and Excel had an unfair advantage over Wordperfect and lotus 1-2-3 because Microsoft had a quasi-monopoly over the operating system. At some point a judge had even decided Microsoft should be split into an os company and an application company. http://www.economist.com/node/593691 http://www.economist.com/node/593691 The situation is very different with android, but the analogy is obvious.
blub 15y ago
It's still open source if the source is published later, but I think being open source is not enough any more (was it ever?). Android needs open governance, right now it's Google's project and they control it as they see fit.
- felipemnoa 15y ago
  >>Android needs open governance, right now it's Google's project and they control it as they see fit. Why? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm truly curious. What would be the benefits? Under Google's governance Android has become quite powerful and a true competitor to the iPhone. Something that no other company has been able to achieve with their own phones/OS. Microsoft, RIM, Palm/HP, Nokia; they've all failed so far. At this moment it is not broken so why fix it?
  - blub 15y ago
    Because right now they claim to be open, but open is just a marketing buzzword (like beta). So in my opinion they either stop bragging about how open they are or actually practice what they preach.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      They are open enough for competitors like Amazon forking Android and creating a version without any Google Apps on it at all. Nobody is forced to use Android. You could always license Symbian or something...
      - objclxt 15y ago
        I don't quite buy your argument. Sure, nobody is forced to use Android, in the same way PC manufacturers aren't forced to ship PCs with Windows installed. You're making it sound like there are compelling alternatives to Android for a handset maker, but really there's not.
        Tichy 15y ago
aptwebapps 15y ago
I'm sorry, but I'm with Jason Kincaid on this one. http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the-bombshell-that-wasnt-foss-patents-android-scoop-misses-the-mark/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the-bombshell-that-wasnt-fo... There wasn't anything new in those documents. We already knew that Google only put out final releases and we already knew about lead phones. It was all public knowledge. That doesn't mean that it has no bearing on the case, but it's not revelatory.
- mbrubeck 15y ago
  Yes, and furthermore this has been their exact process since before Android 1.0 was released. They have never hidden this fact. We were discussing this on Hacker News half a year ago, and it wasn't news then, either: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2394151 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2394151
- pushingbits 15y ago
  I normally wouldn't touch anything that has Florian Mueller's name attached with a ten foot pole, and I certainly wouldn't bet any money on there being a connection between this theory and the settlement talks. On the other hand, that's not to say that I think it's impossible, but Mueller has been too far off the mark too many times. The real news here (as far as I am concerned) is that the judge has suggested settlement talks, which to me, in my legal ignorance, sounds like he thinks the case has some merit?
  - keidian 15y ago
    Are you really implying that Mueller has ever been ON the mark? :p
  - objclxt 15y ago
    Courts typically take a very dim view of parties that refuse to partake in mitigation or attempt to settle: they rightly view it as wasting the court's time, especially if the proposed settlement was near or exceeded what was eventually decided. This is usually true regardless of the relative merits of the case.
- 15y ago
deleo 15y ago
C'mon Google, let us develop with Go or Python, I hate Java with the passion!
danmaz74 15y ago
Community Open Source is a subset of the whole Open Source thing, but not having an open development process doesn't make your code closed source. Google releases Android source code under the Apache 2.0 license, which is definitely open source, so: Where's the matter? This just looks like smoke in the eyes from Oracle lawyers.
- Argorak 15y ago
  This is true. But open sourcing your point releases (or not) doesn't make your software "open" as Google wants to advertise. Most of the Android eco-system is actually as closed as with every other platform, most glaringly the whole development process. This piece just shows that this is exactly what Google wants (which is perfectly fine for me, except the false advertising).
  - guelo 15y ago
    Amazon is about to fork Android, taking the result from thousands of man-months worth of effort funded by Google and making it their own. I think that's the definition of an open source project, anyone can fork it.
    - jensnockert 15y ago
      But can I fork it? Nope, because I do not have access to the latest code, therefore I do not consider it open or open source.
      - danmaz74 15y ago
        We can argue about the whole thing being "open", as there is no exact definition of that, but we can't argue about the released source code being "open source". You can fork that at your will, just respect the Apache 2.0 license terms.
      - jbri 15y ago
        Why can't you fork it without the very latest code? You have access to the code that ships, which is the requirement of viral open-source licenses. You don't have access to the "very latest code" for the Linux kernel either, that resides (in many separate pieces) on various developer's workstations. By the time it actually gets committed, some other developer has made modifications to their working copy (arguably making it "the latest version") and not pushed that up yet.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
reemrevnivek 15y ago
Android is open in the same sense that the Lua programming language implementation is open. Lua is certified open-source software, and distributed with a very liberal license, but PUC-Rio is in complete control of all the development. It's certified by the OSI, whose definition of "Open-source" is available at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. To summarize, open-source means (1) The software and modifications can be redistributed freely, (2) The source code is available, (3) Users are free to modify the software. Android meets these requirements. The software is open-source. The project development is not open: See http://www.lua.org/license.html http://www.lua.org/license.html > Lua is free open-source software, distributed under a very liberal license (the well-known MIT license). It may be used for any purpose, including commercial purposes, at absolutely no cost. Just download it and use it. > Where does Lua come from? > Lua is designed, implemented, and maintained by a team at PUC-Rio, the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Lua was born and raised in Tecgraf, the Computer Graphics Technology Group of PUC-Rio, and is now housed at Lablua. Both Tecgraf and Lablua are laboratories of the Department of Computer Science of PUC-Rio. and http://lua-list.2524044.n2.nabble.com/Lua-open-source-or-not-td5586188.html#a5588414 http://lua-list.2524044.n2.nabble.com/Lua-open-source-or-not... > An "open-source project" has one meaning, an "open-source software" has another. The project is not open source, the software (the result of the project) is. Few people have had a problem with this principle as applied to Lua. I'm not sure why this is confusing or newsworthy when it's applied to Android.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  > Few people have had a problem with this principle as applied to Lua. I'm not sure why this is confusing or newsworthy when it's applied to Android. This is why people have a problem: http://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429 http://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429
  - generalk 15y ago
    What's wrong with that tweet? It fits the definition of open source that your parent post described. I think a lot of people's problem comes from Google having not yet released the Honeycomb source code. It's one thing to say you're open source, provide all your source for each release, but develop in private. It's another thing to say you're open source, develop in private, and not release the source code to your released software.
guelo 15y ago
The bigger news is the settlement talks. Is Google really going to cave and pay royalties?
doki_pen 15y ago
The title is very misleading and should be changed. It sounds like Google is telling the developers of apps that they can't use open source licenses, when it's actually google as a company develops the Android OS in private, then releases the source to the public after it is developed.
zura 15y ago
I'd call it Shared source software or, to be precise, Later shared source software.

95 points by pushingbits 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago

As an untrained reader, I find this very strange. Not open sourcing your products could be a reason to forbid a merger, because you could gain an advantage over your competitors? Really? Is it illegal to be better than your competitors? It almost sounds as if there was a law that companies have to open source their products, which I am pretty sure does not exist (IANAL, though).

chalst 15y ago
Google does open source Android. The point is about when they make a public release of the source. They are only obliged to release the source when they release the code to the public, and the point is that they don't do this any earlier than they have to. This does make the Android development process less than open. It does not stop Android being open source. The relationship to the court case is that Google's development process is very much at question in the issue of whether there is a violation of Oracle's IP.
- Tichy 15y ago
  I don't think they are obliged to do anything.
zupatol 15y ago
Word and Excel had an unfair advantage over Wordperfect and lotus 1-2-3 because Microsoft had a quasi-monopoly over the operating system. At some point a judge had even decided Microsoft should be split into an os company and an application company. http://www.economist.com/node/593691 http://www.economist.com/node/593691 The situation is very different with android, but the analogy is obvious.

blub 15y ago

It's still open source if the source is published later, but I think being open source is not enough any more (was it ever?). Android needs open governance, right now it's Google's project and they control it as they see fit.

felipemnoa 15y ago
>>Android needs open governance, right now it's Google's project and they control it as they see fit. Why? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm truly curious. What would be the benefits? Under Google's governance Android has become quite powerful and a true competitor to the iPhone. Something that no other company has been able to achieve with their own phones/OS. Microsoft, RIM, Palm/HP, Nokia; they've all failed so far. At this moment it is not broken so why fix it?
- blub 15y ago
  Because right now they claim to be open, but open is just a marketing buzzword (like beta). So in my opinion they either stop bragging about how open they are or actually practice what they preach.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    They are open enough for competitors like Amazon forking Android and creating a version without any Google Apps on it at all. Nobody is forced to use Android. You could always license Symbian or something...
    - objclxt 15y ago
      I don't quite buy your argument. Sure, nobody is forced to use Android, in the same way PC manufacturers aren't forced to ship PCs with Windows installed. You're making it sound like there are compelling alternatives to Android for a handset maker, but really there's not.
      - Tichy 15y ago

aptwebapps 15y ago

I'm sorry, but I'm with Jason Kincaid on this one. http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the-bombshell-that-wasnt-foss-patents-android-scoop-misses-the-mark/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the-bombshell-that-wasnt-fo... There wasn't anything new in those documents. We already knew that Google only put out final releases and we already knew about lead phones. It was all public knowledge. That doesn't mean that it has no bearing on the case, but it's not revelatory.

mbrubeck 15y ago
Yes, and furthermore this has been their exact process since before Android 1.0 was released. They have never hidden this fact. We were discussing this on Hacker News half a year ago, and it wasn't news then, either: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2394151 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2394151
pushingbits 15y ago
I normally wouldn't touch anything that has Florian Mueller's name attached with a ten foot pole, and I certainly wouldn't bet any money on there being a connection between this theory and the settlement talks. On the other hand, that's not to say that I think it's impossible, but Mueller has been too far off the mark too many times. The real news here (as far as I am concerned) is that the judge has suggested settlement talks, which to me, in my legal ignorance, sounds like he thinks the case has some merit?
- keidian 15y ago
  Are you really implying that Mueller has ever been ON the mark? :p
- objclxt 15y ago
  Courts typically take a very dim view of parties that refuse to partake in mitigation or attempt to settle: they rightly view it as wasting the court's time, especially if the proposed settlement was near or exceeded what was eventually decided. This is usually true regardless of the relative merits of the case.
15y ago

deleo 15y ago

C'mon Google, let us develop with Go or Python, I hate Java with the passion!

danmaz74 15y ago

Community Open Source is a subset of the whole Open Source thing, but not having an open development process doesn't make your code closed source. Google releases Android source code under the Apache 2.0 license, which is definitely open source, so: Where's the matter? This just looks like smoke in the eyes from Oracle lawyers.

Argorak 15y ago
This is true. But open sourcing your point releases (or not) doesn't make your software "open" as Google wants to advertise. Most of the Android eco-system is actually as closed as with every other platform, most glaringly the whole development process. This piece just shows that this is exactly what Google wants (which is perfectly fine for me, except the false advertising).
- guelo 15y ago
  Amazon is about to fork Android, taking the result from thousands of man-months worth of effort funded by Google and making it their own. I think that's the definition of an open source project, anyone can fork it.
  - jensnockert 15y ago
    But can I fork it? Nope, because I do not have access to the latest code, therefore I do not consider it open or open source.
    - danmaz74 15y ago
      We can argue about the whole thing being "open", as there is no exact definition of that, but we can't argue about the released source code being "open source". You can fork that at your will, just respect the Apache 2.0 license terms.
    - jbri 15y ago
      Why can't you fork it without the very latest code? You have access to the code that ships, which is the requirement of viral open-source licenses. You don't have access to the "very latest code" for the Linux kernel either, that resides (in many separate pieces) on various developer's workstations. By the time it actually gets committed, some other developer has made modifications to their working copy (arguably making it "the latest version") and not pushed that up yet.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

reemrevnivek 15y ago

Android is open in the same sense that the Lua programming language implementation is open. Lua is certified open-source software, and distributed with a very liberal license, but PUC-Rio is in complete control of all the development. It's certified by the OSI, whose definition of "Open-source" is available at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. To summarize, open-source means (1) The software and modifications can be redistributed freely, (2) The source code is available, (3) Users are free to modify the software. Android meets these requirements. The software is open-source. The project development is not open: See http://www.lua.org/license.html http://www.lua.org/license.html > Lua is free open-source software, distributed under a very liberal license (the well-known MIT license). It may be used for any purpose, including commercial purposes, at absolutely no cost. Just download it and use it. > Where does Lua come from? > Lua is designed, implemented, and maintained by a team at PUC-Rio, the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Lua was born and raised in Tecgraf, the Computer Graphics Technology Group of PUC-Rio, and is now housed at Lablua. Both Tecgraf and Lablua are laboratories of the Department of Computer Science of PUC-Rio. and http://lua-list.2524044.n2.nabble.com/Lua-open-source-or-not-td5586188.html#a5588414 http://lua-list.2524044.n2.nabble.com/Lua-open-source-or-not... > An "open-source project" has one meaning, an "open-source software" has another. The project is not open source, the software (the result of the project) is. Few people have had a problem with this principle as applied to Lua. I'm not sure why this is confusing or newsworthy when it's applied to Android.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
> Few people have had a problem with this principle as applied to Lua. I'm not sure why this is confusing or newsworthy when it's applied to Android. This is why people have a problem: http://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429 http://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429
- generalk 15y ago
  What's wrong with that tweet? It fits the definition of open source that your parent post described. I think a lot of people's problem comes from Google having not yet released the Honeycomb source code. It's one thing to say you're open source, provide all your source for each release, but develop in private. It's another thing to say you're open source, develop in private, and not release the source code to your released software.

guelo 15y ago

The bigger news is the settlement talks. Is Google really going to cave and pay royalties?

doki_pen 15y ago

The title is very misleading and should be changed. It sounds like Google is telling the developers of apps that they can't use open source licenses, when it's actually google as a company develops the Android OS in private, then releases the source to the public after it is developed.

zura 15y ago

I'd call it Shared source software or, to be precise, Later shared source software.