2 ms·

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

by 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.

by zobzu 15y ago

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.