4 ms·

>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 n

>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.
- bruce511 15y ago
  >> The point of HC is that Google proved they can't be trusted about always releasing the source. um - they're not exactly the first company to develop a commercial offering on top of an earlier open-source offering. So I'm not sure what your point here is. As I understand it, an open source license allows you to get the code to software you are _already running_ not some commitment by the producer to release future versions of the software under an open license in perpetuity. >> 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 As I understand the GPL, even if current versions of Android were GPL'd, future versions would not necessarily be so, since the only person affected would be the copyright holder. IANAL but since Google holds the copyright for Android code, they'd be free to license it under some other license as well, and then derive from that. This seems to be very common in open source projects (dual licensing I mean). In short - an Open Source license gives you access to current, not future, code. And the copyright holder of the code can release derived versions which are not Open Source.
Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
> 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? Is it less open source? Yes, as far as Honeycomb is concerned the source wasn't opened so it's not open source at all. If you don't share the source, it's not open source, period. Whether it's "enough" very much depends on what you want from an open source project. You think it is, that's fine but for me, given how committed Google are meant to be to open source, I don't think they should be picking and choosing. At the very least I'd have liked a commitment that they'd make it open at the same point ICS was made open so people could buy a Honeycomb tablet confident that they could get access to the code in the future if they wanted or needed it. >> 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. "Over the past few months, according to several people familiar with the matter, Google has been demanding that Android licensees abide by "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google the final say on how they can tweak the Android code—to make new interfaces and add services—and in some cases whom they can partner with." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216_page_2.htm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412... Looks like tightening the licensing terms to me. Don't get me wrong, I don't dispute Google's right to do this and I don't necessarily think that it's a bad thing for Android, I just don't think it's a very "open" thing to be doing. Google can do what they like with Android but if they want to get the credit and kudos that rightly goes with an open source project, they need to accept that there is going to be criticism when they start moving the goal posts.

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.
bruce511 15y ago
>> The point of HC is that Google proved they can't be trusted about always releasing the source. um - they're not exactly the first company to develop a commercial offering on top of an earlier open-source offering. So I'm not sure what your point here is. As I understand it, an open source license allows you to get the code to software you are _already running_ not some commitment by the producer to release future versions of the software under an open license in perpetuity. >> 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 As I understand the GPL, even if current versions of Android were GPL'd, future versions would not necessarily be so, since the only person affected would be the copyright holder. IANAL but since Google holds the copyright for Android code, they'd be free to license it under some other license as well, and then derive from that. This seems to be very common in open source projects (dual licensing I mean). In short - an Open Source license gives you access to current, not future, code. And the copyright holder of the code can release derived versions which are not Open Source.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago

> 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? Is it less open source? Yes, as far as Honeycomb is concerned the source wasn't opened so it's not open source at all. If you don't share the source, it's not open source, period. Whether it's "enough" very much depends on what you want from an open source project. You think it is, that's fine but for me, given how committed Google are meant to be to open source, I don't think they should be picking and choosing. At the very least I'd have liked a commitment that they'd make it open at the same point ICS was made open so people could buy a Honeycomb tablet confident that they could get access to the code in the future if they wanted or needed it. >> 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. "Over the past few months, according to several people familiar with the matter, Google has been demanding that Android licensees abide by "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google the final say on how they can tweak the Android code—to make new interfaces and add services—and in some cases whom they can partner with." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216_page_2.htm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b42230412... Looks like tightening the licensing terms to me. Don't get me wrong, I don't dispute Google's right to do this and I don't necessarily think that it's a bad thing for Android, I just don't think it's a very "open" thing to be doing. Google can do what they like with Android but if they want to get the credit and kudos that rightly goes with an open source project, they need to accept that there is going to be criticism when they start moving the goal posts.