Google's openness is a pretty complex issue.[0] If you define 'open' as binary, and only true if every item in a certain list is met, then it's almost certainl

Google's openness is a pretty complex issue.[0] If you define 'open' as binary, and only true if every item in a certain list is met, then it's almost certainly true that Android is not open. But I don't think that's a particularly illuminating way to describe the situation. I think it's fair to say that so far, the smartphone side of Android, up to and including Gingerbread, has been open in the way that Andy Rubin described in his tweet. The tablet side, Honeycomb, has not. You can take this as evidence that Google nefariously pulled a bait-and-switch and unconscientiously uses principles like 'open' only when it suits them financially. Or you can give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their explanation that the source code for Honeycomb wasn't ready for public consumption, and they had to make a pragmatic decision in the interest of maintaining their platform. Besides that issue, it seems to me that RMS's gripes are largely to do not with Android but with the entire phone industry, and most of every other electronics industry. It doesn't seem like a criticism of Android or Google as such. Like he said, Android brings smartphones closer to his dream than we've ever seen. It's really up to the parts that Google has little control over now. "My personal take on all this is that if you base your offering on a huge amount of open source that you should keep the spirit of those whose code enables you to run your business alive and respond in kind." I agree, and it seems to me that Google has mostly fulfilled its obligations. [0]: I wrote a whole blog post on it: http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9579550453/googles-open-hand-and-closed-fist http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9579550453/googles-open-hand-...