4 ms·

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.
- anon1385 15y ago
  >You have access to the code that ships, which is the requirement of viral open-source licenses. Except we don't have access to the code that ships. The code shipping on Honeycomb device is not available. >You don't have access to the "very latest code" for the Linux kernel either Using an 8 month old version of the Android source is not the same as not having access to kernel code that is still being written. With the linux kernel you can access code as soon as it is committed to kernal.org, with Android you only get to see it after an entire new version of the OS has been released (and sometimes not even then). It is perhaps difficult to draw a solid line here, and pedants will complain that you don't have access to code that still only exists in Linus' brain, but there seems to be a pretty clear difference to me.
  - jbri 15y ago
    > Using an 8 month old version of the Android source is not the same as not having access to kernel code that is still being written. With the linux kernel you can access code as soon as it is committed to kernal.org, with Android you only get to see it after an entire new version of the OS has been released (and sometimes not even then). It is perhaps difficult to draw a solid line here, and pedants will complain that you don't have access to code that still only exists in Linus' brain, but there seems to be a pretty clear difference to me. You're right, there is a difference. But the difference is one of process, and isn't really related to the openness of the software itself.
    - anon1385 15y ago
      It very much is related to the software: Android 3.x is not open source because this 'process' has meant the code has not been released.

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.

anon1385 15y ago
>You have access to the code that ships, which is the requirement of viral open-source licenses. Except we don't have access to the code that ships. The code shipping on Honeycomb device is not available. >You don't have access to the "very latest code" for the Linux kernel either Using an 8 month old version of the Android source is not the same as not having access to kernel code that is still being written. With the linux kernel you can access code as soon as it is committed to kernal.org, with Android you only get to see it after an entire new version of the OS has been released (and sometimes not even then). It is perhaps difficult to draw a solid line here, and pedants will complain that you don't have access to code that still only exists in Linus' brain, but there seems to be a pretty clear difference to me.
- jbri 15y ago
  > Using an 8 month old version of the Android source is not the same as not having access to kernel code that is still being written. With the linux kernel you can access code as soon as it is committed to kernal.org, with Android you only get to see it after an entire new version of the OS has been released (and sometimes not even then). It is perhaps difficult to draw a solid line here, and pedants will complain that you don't have access to code that still only exists in Linus' brain, but there seems to be a pretty clear difference to me. You're right, there is a difference. But the difference is one of process, and isn't really related to the openness of the software itself.
  - anon1385 15y ago
    It very much is related to the software: Android 3.x is not open source because this 'process' has meant the code has not been released.