> 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 ma

> 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.