3 ms·

Is it moving in the right direction? This is an open source project that hasn't done a code release for the last few versions (covering almost a year) and is t

Is it moving in the right direction? This is an open source project that hasn't done a code release for the last few versions (covering almost a year) and is tightening the licensing agreements to exert control (and doing so in such a way that anyone who isn't a proper licensee will struggle to compete). Yes they've said that they'll open it up again once Ice Cream Sandwich is out but I'm unconvinced by a company who close off the source as and when it suits them. It feels closer to some sort of "shared source" model than open source. It might be better than the Apple iOS / Microsoft Windows Phone model (though I'm not 100% clear exactly how much better) but it seems to stop a long, long way short of the ideal. EDIT: Sorry, being a bit unclear in what I mean by shared source. I was trying to differentiate between projects than run in a open / collaborative way and those where they just publish the code after the event. I wasn't aware that shared source had already been coined to describe a particular model.

bad_user 15y ago
Open-source is strictly about the redistribution license and the right to fork it and less about about anything else. Shared-source (as defined by Microsoft's licenses) is strictly about the right to see the source-code, but not touch it. Free Software is strictly about empowering end-users to make and share derivate works and less about anything else. This has important ramifications - the pure open-source licenses with no other agendas, like the BSD and Apache, do give you unlimited freedom, including the freedom to not release improvements / new versions. Basically if you're not happy, you can take Android 2.x and fork it. As an individual developer, you may not have the resources, time or capacity to do that, but Amazon just did. That's as far from shared-source as you can get btw ;)
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  Sorry, being a bit unclear in what I mean by shared source. I was trying to differentiate between projects than run in a open / collaborative way and those where they just publish the code after the event. I wasn't aware that shared source had already been coined to describe a particular model. But I maintain the gist of my complain - right now you can take Android 2.x and fork it, but you can't take 3.x and fork it. Nothing after that has been opened because Google decided that it didn't suit them. There may be some adherence to open but I feel uneasy about a project that is open when it suits the parent company but not when it doesn't.
  - pgeorgi 15y ago
    2.3.x was released as well (though 2.3.7 is somewhat unofficial/dubious at omapzoom due to the kernel.org downtime)
  - bad_user 15y ago
    Right, I just wanted to make the definitions clear. A product is open-source if it comes with an OSI approved license, which grants you several liberties not available with other license models (like Shared Source from Microsoft). At this point in time Android 2.x is open-source, while 3.x is not. I do agree with you, I am quite sure Google has delayed the release of 3.x because of Amazon's Kindle Fire, which is really not how open-source should work. On the other hand, I still have hope because 2.x is for the moment good enough, the genie is already out of the bottle, and if Google betrays the community in the end, I'm sure there are others willing to pick up 2.x and develop from there.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
>This is an open source project that hasn't done a code release for the last few versions what? Honeycomb's source (and only the ONE revision of Android) was not released and I can spout off the three most popular theories, but it doesn't really matter. We've been round and round this many times. If Google chooses to skip releasing 3.0 source, why is that particularly different than me choosing to develop on my own private Git repo and jump from version 1.0 to 3.0 while only releasing 2.0 in binary form. Is it "less" open source? Depends on how you want to define "is" and "open source" I suppose, but I'm inclined to enjoy it. As far as I'm concerned it's "open source enough", in that both my D1 and Fascinate are running fully open source operating systems (aside from proprietary drivers obviously). >is tightening the licensing agreements to exert control (and doing so in such a way that anyone who isn't a proper licensee will struggle to compete). Um, no they're not. The licenses are the same for both AOSP and the terms for getting Google Apps are the same still. Not much of this post is factual. Like, hardly if any of it is. -- tl;dr Google fails to release code for ONE revision of Android and has the exact same licensing terms for AOSP and Google Apps as always. And I get downvoted. Cool.
- zobzu 15y ago
  The point of HC (which is slightly off topic, but i'll bite), is that Google proved they can't be trusted about always releasing the source. This simply means the next version of Android might or might not be open source. Then the next, next one too. It means also, if in 2 years 99% of the market runs Android and Google decides to take several choices that users may object about, they can just close the source forever. Of course, since its not GPL licensed, they could always close the source forever - even if they had open sourced the OS every time in the past (but they did not.). So it's about trust, and the trust is gone.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    None of what you just said is unique to Android at all. Except for the fact that Google has repeatedly said the Honeycomb is a small fluke they don't plan to repeat. In the same light as something another poster alludes to: AOSP 1.0, 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 4.0 (and associated minor revisions) are all known to be open source releases. Honeycomb stands as a sole exception that, again, Google has said will not occur again.

bad_user 15y ago

Open-source is strictly about the redistribution license and the right to fork it and less about about anything else. Shared-source (as defined by Microsoft's licenses) is strictly about the right to see the source-code, but not touch it. Free Software is strictly about empowering end-users to make and share derivate works and less about anything else. This has important ramifications - the pure open-source licenses with no other agendas, like the BSD and Apache, do give you unlimited freedom, including the freedom to not release improvements / new versions. Basically if you're not happy, you can take Android 2.x and fork it. As an individual developer, you may not have the resources, time or capacity to do that, but Amazon just did. That's as far from shared-source as you can get btw ;)

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
Sorry, being a bit unclear in what I mean by shared source. I was trying to differentiate between projects than run in a open / collaborative way and those where they just publish the code after the event. I wasn't aware that shared source had already been coined to describe a particular model. But I maintain the gist of my complain - right now you can take Android 2.x and fork it, but you can't take 3.x and fork it. Nothing after that has been opened because Google decided that it didn't suit them. There may be some adherence to open but I feel uneasy about a project that is open when it suits the parent company but not when it doesn't.
- pgeorgi 15y ago
  2.3.x was released as well (though 2.3.7 is somewhat unofficial/dubious at omapzoom due to the kernel.org downtime)
- bad_user 15y ago
  Right, I just wanted to make the definitions clear. A product is open-source if it comes with an OSI approved license, which grants you several liberties not available with other license models (like Shared Source from Microsoft). At this point in time Android 2.x is open-source, while 3.x is not. I do agree with you, I am quite sure Google has delayed the release of 3.x because of Amazon's Kindle Fire, which is really not how open-source should work. On the other hand, I still have hope because 2.x is for the moment good enough, the genie is already out of the bottle, and if Google betrays the community in the end, I'm sure there are others willing to pick up 2.x and develop from there.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

>This is an open source project that hasn't done a code release for the last few versions what? Honeycomb's source (and only the ONE revision of Android) was not released and I can spout off the three most popular theories, but it doesn't really matter. We've been round and round this many times. If Google chooses to skip releasing 3.0 source, why is that particularly different than me choosing to develop on my own private Git repo and jump from version 1.0 to 3.0 while only releasing 2.0 in binary form. Is it "less" open source? Depends on how you want to define "is" and "open source" I suppose, but I'm inclined to enjoy it. As far as I'm concerned it's "open source enough", in that both my D1 and Fascinate are running fully open source operating systems (aside from proprietary drivers obviously). >is tightening the licensing agreements to exert control (and doing so in such a way that anyone who isn't a proper licensee will struggle to compete). Um, no they're not. The licenses are the same for both AOSP and the terms for getting Google Apps are the same still. Not much of this post is factual. Like, hardly if any of it is. -- tl;dr Google fails to release code for ONE revision of Android and has the exact same licensing terms for AOSP and Google Apps as always. And I get downvoted. Cool.

zobzu 15y ago
The point of HC (which is slightly off topic, but i'll bite), is that Google proved they can't be trusted about always releasing the source. This simply means the next version of Android might or might not be open source. Then the next, next one too. It means also, if in 2 years 99% of the market runs Android and Google decides to take several choices that users may object about, they can just close the source forever. Of course, since its not GPL licensed, they could always close the source forever - even if they had open sourced the OS every time in the past (but they did not.). So it's about trust, and the trust is gone.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  None of what you just said is unique to Android at all. Except for the fact that Google has repeatedly said the Honeycomb is a small fluke they don't plan to repeat. In the same light as something another poster alludes to: AOSP 1.0, 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 4.0 (and associated minor revisions) are all known to be open source releases. Honeycomb stands as a sole exception that, again, Google has said will not occur again.