To me, the minimal definition of "open source" is that "if it's good enough to sell binaries to end users, it should be good enough to release source to develop

To me, the minimal definition of "open source" is that "if it's good enough to sell binaries to end users, it should be good enough to release source to developers", so by that definition, Honeycomb is not open source (although I have no reason to believe that it violates any open source licenses). I've always found the argument that a product that is being sold to customers is "not ready for public use" specious.