3 ms·
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 view
by 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 agoEverybody has a different definition of open.
- Argorak 15y agoThank 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.