5 ms·
RMS has a singular killer point, which is that the source code for neither 3.0 nor 3.1 has been released. Google seems to be trying to straddle the fence here,
by redthrowaway 15y ago
RMS has a singular killer point, which is that the source code for neither 3.0 nor 3.1 has been released. Google seems to be trying to straddle the fence here, maintaining the appearances of OSS while not actually providing a development trunk. Google may claim openness in the face of this, but open without source is closed. You can't claim to be FOSS while only releasing bins.
- Tichy 15y agoAndroid 3.0 or 3.1 are not on phones, though.
- gnaffle 15y agoThey could have been, though, if the source code had been released. :)
- Tichy 15y agoAnd I could have been a millionaire.
- ashishgandhi 15y agoI can't say anything about that but I would bet my money on gnaffle's point.
- Tichy 15y agoIt's very difficult to not have the opportunity to become a millionaire. For example I could have bought a lottery ticket and won the lottery. But I didn't. Likewise, Google hasn't published the Honeycomb source yet. Also, it is strictly logic, you can follow everything from a false statement (false => anything). So, if Google had released the source for Honeycomb I could have been a millionaire is a strictly true statement.
- xentronium 15y agoWhat point are you trying to prove?
- billswift 15y agoI think he's trying to prove he doesn't understand logic. You can prove anything from contradictory true statements not from false ones.
- Tichy 15y agoContradictory true statements? Is that some kind of quantum logic? Maybe I am too old fashioned for that, I admit defeat.
- Tichy 15y agoThat the discussion is complete BS.
- gnaffle 15y agoI think you'll agree that it's much more likely that we'd had Android 3.0 on phones if they released the source code, than that you'd become a millionaire if you bought a lottery ticket. After all, people have done that to previous open source Android releases, I can even install the latest Android release on my iPhone.
- lootabooga 15y agoYes. And, talking about wild hypotheses, your argument could also be a lot more relevant or even have some point. The fact that 3.x is not on phones doesn't make an iota of difference on whether Google should have opened it or not.
- jstedfast 15y agoIs software freedom defined differently on phones vs tablets? Why does Android 3.x not being for phones make any difference at all to this conversation?
- Tichy 15y agoBecause the title is "Android phones...", and also the majority of Android devices being sold are phones. You definitely have the option to get a non-Honeycomb Android phone right now. Afaik Honeycomb was never meant for phones, either.
- jstedfast 15y agoOkay, that may be but it has no impact on the "freeness" of Android 3.x.