8 ms·

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

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.
  - Argorak 15y ago
    Except the fact that it tries to define "open" and not "open source". For me, Mozilla Firefox or Ubuntu are open. All development, the planning etc. can be viewed at at all time. All parts of the full stack are open and free. You can participate if you want. Android can be forked and inspected, which are the fine things about open source, but it cannot be followed like you can with "open" software.
    - abraham 15y ago
      Everybody has a different definition of open.
      - Argorak 15y ago
        Thank you for a lesson in an obvious topic, and incidentally thats why I wrote "For me", and not "For everyone". But lets put it in another way: its hard to argue that all aspects of Android are 'open' while its easy to argue that some of them are definitely 'closed'. Whether that sums up to a "open" or "closed" verdict is not up to me. For me it sums up as being somewhere in the grey area, more to the "closed" side after the Honeycomb incident.
- scott_s 15y ago
  How does that disagree with the parent's point?
ugh 15y ago
Is Android still open source, though? As far as I know Honeycomb’s source is still not available.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  There is a fork, the 3.x series, that's not open-source. Ice cream sandwich, AFAIK, will be as open as the 2.x series.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Ok, so the current version of Android is not open source.
    - Maakuth 15y ago
      It's not that simple. One would think that 3.x series is the current one, but on the other hand, there has been at least one major release in 2.x series after the release of 3.0.
      - ugh 15y ago
        Hm, right. It’s probably best to say that Google’s tablet OS is not open source. It might be open source again when Google unifies its phone and tablet OS.
        rbanffy 15y ago
        That's correct. The tablet version is not open-source (they probably embedded some proprietary code in it in order to make the deadline). The 4.0 series is expected to unify the tablet and the phone OSs and be open-source.
        bnr 15y ago
        I always assumed that if they open sourced 3.X, people would start putting it on phones, which it is not deemed ready for yet. These devices would certainly not get official certification from Google, probably they would not even make it to the market, but the fact that they exist would put a lot of pressure on the large manufacturers that could not release with the latest-and-greatest firmware.
tedunangst 15y ago
Lua doesn't, to my knowledge, advertise itself as the free and open alternative to some evil proprietary oppressor. Whether Google intentionally positioned Android as such or whether that's just the wishful thinking of its fans is irrelevant now. The expectation for Android is that it will be completely open. People complain about things when they are disappointed, or when they perceive hypocrisy or broken (real or imagined) promises. There's no absolute scale.
mtogo 15y ago
It's confusing because Google constantly markets Android as "open", then says "Yeah, it's not actually open, you can see the latest version when we finish it."
- archgoon 15y ago
  >"Yeah, it's not actually open, you can see the latest version when we finish it. You can see the _source code_ when they're finished with it, and bundle it with a product. That is significant, or do you happen to have a copy of iOS 3 lying around that you can bundle with your own non-apple phone?

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.
- Argorak 15y ago
  Except the fact that it tries to define "open" and not "open source". For me, Mozilla Firefox or Ubuntu are open. All development, the planning etc. can be viewed at at all time. All parts of the full stack are open and free. You can participate if you want. Android can be forked and inspected, which are the fine things about open source, but it cannot be followed like you can with "open" software.
  - abraham 15y ago
    Everybody has a different definition of open.
    - Argorak 15y ago
      Thank you for a lesson in an obvious topic, and incidentally thats why I wrote "For me", and not "For everyone". But lets put it in another way: its hard to argue that all aspects of Android are 'open' while its easy to argue that some of them are definitely 'closed'. Whether that sums up to a "open" or "closed" verdict is not up to me. For me it sums up as being somewhere in the grey area, more to the "closed" side after the Honeycomb incident.
scott_s 15y ago
How does that disagree with the parent's point?

ugh 15y ago

Is Android still open source, though? As far as I know Honeycomb’s source is still not available.

rbanffy 15y ago
There is a fork, the 3.x series, that's not open-source. Ice cream sandwich, AFAIK, will be as open as the 2.x series.
- ugh 15y ago
  Ok, so the current version of Android is not open source.
  - Maakuth 15y ago
    It's not that simple. One would think that 3.x series is the current one, but on the other hand, there has been at least one major release in 2.x series after the release of 3.0.
    - ugh 15y ago
      Hm, right. It’s probably best to say that Google’s tablet OS is not open source. It might be open source again when Google unifies its phone and tablet OS.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        That's correct. The tablet version is not open-source (they probably embedded some proprietary code in it in order to make the deadline). The 4.0 series is expected to unify the tablet and the phone OSs and be open-source.
        bnr 15y ago
        I always assumed that if they open sourced 3.X, people would start putting it on phones, which it is not deemed ready for yet. These devices would certainly not get official certification from Google, probably they would not even make it to the market, but the fact that they exist would put a lot of pressure on the large manufacturers that could not release with the latest-and-greatest firmware.

tedunangst 15y ago

Lua doesn't, to my knowledge, advertise itself as the free and open alternative to some evil proprietary oppressor. Whether Google intentionally positioned Android as such or whether that's just the wishful thinking of its fans is irrelevant now. The expectation for Android is that it will be completely open. People complain about things when they are disappointed, or when they perceive hypocrisy or broken (real or imagined) promises. There's no absolute scale.

mtogo 15y ago

It's confusing because Google constantly markets Android as "open", then says "Yeah, it's not actually open, you can see the latest version when we finish it."

archgoon 15y ago
>"Yeah, it's not actually open, you can see the latest version when we finish it. You can see the _source code_ when they're finished with it, and bundle it with a product. That is significant, or do you happen to have a copy of iOS 3 lying around that you can bundle with your own non-apple phone?