4 ms·

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 wher

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.