7 ms·

Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

93 points by twapi 15y ago

parfe 15y ago
Google's recalcitrance appears to stem from two issues: one is that Honeycomb is specifically designed for large-screen devices and Google is concerned that, if released, it would find its way onto unsuitable form factors; the other, hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. I'm not sure why Google caught so much slack for keeping 3.0 closed source. I found these to be great reasons and instead of dealing with a bunch of HoneyComb/Android SUCKS reviews when someone put honeycomb on a small screen device google just weathered it out and released something with some quality.
- j_col 15y ago
  > hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. Sounds like their were embarassed about the quality of their code.
  - yellowbkpk 15y ago
    It could also be that it takes a very large amount of time to check and verify what can be released as open source code. Reorganizing the code so that proprietary drivers and internal-only APIs are abstracted out can take a very very long time. Even if nothing has to change, the time spent checking for these things was probably better spent working on Ice Cream Sandwich.
- xdissent 15y ago
  They got lambasted for not releasing Honeycomb because "open" is one of their largest marketing platforms and the reason many people use Android. I'm glad they're going to release ICS source at some point, but can anyone be sure they'll continue to publish code for future versions? That kind of uncertainty diminishes their claims of "open" greatly in my mind. Also, a tiny nit about the headline - it's not open source until they actually release it. Who knows when that will be.
  - phuff 15y ago
    Fwiw, many is a very relative term there. Android phones are definitely mainstream. I'd say of all the people I know that have an android phone, less than 10% even know what "open source" means.
    - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
      It is relative, but many people bought Android phones because their techie brother-in-law raved about it. He raved about it because it was "open". I have little doubt this was a major cause for Android crossing the chasm, so it does seem a bit disingenuous to only be "kind of" open.
      - phuff 15y ago
        The kind of open that they do is definitely less good than I would have hoped (I would love to be able to submit patches for the bugs I regularly encounter on my N1, say). But trust me, of all the people I know who have android phones here in "Middle America" (off the top of my head without thinking too hard let's say more than 10), none of them bought them because of a techie brother in law raved about it being so cool because it was open. They all bought them because they wanted a smart phone and it was the one they were sold by the telco marketing. Period. (Okay, I'm up to more than twenty coming to mind just while thinking at the same time as typing, and still, none of them bought them because of the openness at all). So yeah. While it's really marketing-speak to say that android is open in the sense that we all traditionally think of it, to google (and much more importantly to all the telco sales people) it means exactly squat as a selling point. Which is why only people on HN (and Richard Stallman) get upset about it :)
      - sbuk 15y ago
        My girlfriend has an Android phone. Her reasons are threefold (in order of importance); 1) It's cheap. 2) It's relatively small (Wildfire S is smaller that the iPhone). 3) She uses only Google services (Gmail etc.) so it makes sense to use Android. She is what I believe to be a typical user and the fact that the OS is "open" is irrelevant to her. No-one else influenced her choice and I think this is true of the majority of the phone-buying public; the silent majority that actually matter (we "technically minded" [geeks and nerds!] really don't). Genuinely, the openness debate only has any relevance in places like this, and even then it's arguably not really relevant.
- funkah 15y ago
  They're fine reasons, I just think it's lame to tout how "open" they are when in practice, it's more like "open when we think it's a good idea".
  - qF 15y ago
    According to this[1] data Honeycomb is <2% of used Android versions. With the versions that 98% of the devices run being open I'd say it's a bit more than just touting about it.. [1] http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve...
    - ceejayoz 15y ago
      > According to this[1] data Honeycomb is <2% of used Android versions. Because it's a closed-source Android variant that only works on specific devices.
    - funkah 15y ago
      Why did they even bother, then? That info makes this whole thing less understandable to me, not more. Edit: Actually, that's beside the point. I think the reason they made Honeycomb is because they thought a lot of people would buy Android tablets, because a lot of people were buying iPads. But they were wrong about that. I'm just saying, if they did it this way one time, there's no guarantee they won't do it again. How "open" it is, is really subject to Google's whim.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
- yardie 15y ago
  hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. They could have used some help from the opensource community to clean up the kludge....but they don't take pushes from anyone not Google.
  - durin42 15y ago
    This just isn't true. I know for a fact JBQ has reviewed patches (and gotten relevant engineers to review things) that have made it into AOSP. The Android team does pre-push code review using Gerrit, and they often lack the personnel to review every change that comes in. As a result, patches sometimes (perhaps often?) wither on the vine before anyone can code review them. Also: many potential contributors are scared off by the contributor license agreement required by AOSP. Patch contributions without the CLA can't even be reviewed. As for not releasing honeycomb, look at releasing the kludged code from their perspective. They probably didn't want phones released from HC that wasn't ready for phone use, thus giving them a bad name when awful "Android Honeycomb Phones" hit the market.
    - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
      Exactly. Honeycomb was something of a stopgap to catch up to iPad while Google went for its unified phone/tab ICS OS. Considering all the 1.6/2.1 tablets that were released this year that were just horrible, I can see why google went this route. The industry was fucking up tablets pretty badly and I can't imagine AOpen or Archos or whomever having access to a half-cooked Honeycomb source and pushing out yet another shitty product. Instead we have gems like the Transformer, Galaxy Tab, Xoom, etc. Seems to me that google made the right move. Soon they'll all have access to ICS anyway. Lets see how badly these other companies fuck that up with their crapware, questionable UI changes, and cheesy hardware (I believe Archos or some other company is still selling resistive screens). Even if they do, we already have an established set of decent tablet products.
    - mdwrigh2 15y ago
      I'd also point out that basically all tool development is done in the open in AOSP. As you pointed out, it's usually just a matter of finding the people necessary to do code reviews.
- ootachi 15y ago
  Because the name is "Android Open Source Project". It's totally fine to develop closed source software! The problem is that if you market something that's actually closed as "open", you're being disingenuous. Apple did the same thing with Darwin, but to their credit they started backing off on the "open source" marketing once it became clear that they were heading in that direction.
  - nknight 15y ago
    The Darwin source is still being released if you want it (following the periodic code dump model), it just doesn't get much attention. For most people, it doesn't really offer a compelling case over Linux or its *BSD cousins.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  That goes against the principle of open-source. The principle is that by releasing code to the public you will get contributions from others (an extra set of eyes) that will make the project overall better. But to accept this principle to have to also accept that some people will take your code and use it in ways that you don't approve. The hope/belief is that the good will float to the top. If you don't accept this premise then you don't really have an open-source project. I can't figure out why Android open sources its code, ever. They don't seem to care about contributions from the community, and they obviously don't want people using their code in ways they disapprove of. It seems that the major reason for open sourcing their code must be something else. What I keep coming back to is that it somehow protects them (in most cases) of patent violations. I've asked this in the past: what is Andy Rubin's open-source credentials? What open-source projects has he been involved in during his long and successful career?
  - km3k 15y ago
    > They don't seem to care about contributions from the community Google accepts a lot of patches from the community. Many of the major custom ROMs regularly submit patches. Things aren't perfect at the moment since all this infrastructure was hosted at kernel.org and is still down, so I can't link you directly to examples of public patch submissions and code review, unfortunately. But I can tell you they used Gerrit for that code review.
    - telcodud 15y ago
      AOSP source code is now back online: http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c73c14f9b0dcd15a http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c73c14f9...
      - km3k 15y ago
        That's correct. I should have mentioned that. Do you know if the gerrit code review website is back? I haven't been able to find a working URL for it.
martingordon 15y ago
Do we have a term to distinguish between the two different models of open source? The two models being the "development in public" model (Chrome, Firefox, Rails, etc) and the "release finished code" model (Android, most GPL components of closed source software, etc).
- dmaz 15y ago
  Cathedral and Bazaar works here
  - durin42 15y ago
    I'm not quite sure. Chromium (the open-source end of Chrome) is very much a cathedral in the sense of product direction, but is developed in the open. I can't come up with something that has the opposite pairing though (it'd be kind of strange). I'm all in favor of some pithy term for "source released under an open license but not developed in full view of the public."
    - DrCatbox 15y ago
      Shared Source is nice, or half-open source. Or, "we take all the benefits, free workforce and goodwill of free software while retaining all control and money".
      - dsl 15y ago
        The first thing I thought of was "Shared Source", the licensing program for Windows source code.
    - elwin 15y ago
      How about "write-closed" vs. "write-open"? Or more simply, "read-only open source".
      - nknight 15y ago
        Fork-only might be more appropriate, since you're quite free to write to your copy.
dman 15y ago
If the code is unfit for others to read why is it being shipped in production devices?
- notatoad 15y ago
  because Google felt they had to release something to stop manufacturers shoehorning 2.2 into tablets and making thelm look bad.
- j_col 15y ago
  A fine question
- dabeeeenster 15y ago
  Because the quality of the source code and the quality of the resultant binaries are two completely different things.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - sovande 15y ago
    The source code is used to produce the "resultant binaries" so unless you have a very strange definition of "quality" the OP has a very valid question.
    - zmmmmm 15y ago
      > a very strange definition of "quality" Is it strange that, say, comments are stripped out of a binary? Or that the file names of the source files are not in there? These things are examples of aspects of quality that have no impact on the binary but make a big difference to the quality of the source.
- Tobu 15y ago
  Because the industry norm for consumer gadgets is short product cycles, with the production of terrible quality code that doesn't see much maintenance after the release. Most users won't notice. Even a "quality" product like the iPhone was shipped with everything running as root and a mess in the filesystem (and that's for a platform that has been maintained since).
pingswept 15y ago
"Although the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich software development kit has been released, the source code is not yet out." I believe this is called "closed source." When I go to http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/, the latest release is Android 2.3 ("Gingerbread"). Am I missing a repository somewhere, or is Google "happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it", as it's put later in this thread? (Edited to be less inflammatory)
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  There's a difference between "making shit up" and pre-announcing. It's not unreasonable for them to hold back the source code until the first phone implementing the phone (the Galaxy Nexus) is available next month.
  - ajross 15y ago
    It's not "unexpected" or "uncommon", maybe. I think it's entirely unreasonable for an entity calling itself an "open source project" to withhold code under development from the public. There's no project here. But it's still better than we got from Honeycomb (or Apple, or MS), so I guess beggars can't be choosers.
    - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
      I agree. I'm not wild about the "open" model they adopt - the code is (generally) open but the project certainly isn't and they do seem to play around with it to suit their commercial needs. But given that Amazon have gone and lifted the Android code base and reused it without any endorsement or sanction from Google and largely not to Google's benefit, Google deserve some kudos for continuing to outsource Android at all.
      - X-Istence 15y ago
        Wait, what now? If you release a project as open source having someone come along, repurpose it and use it is what you are hoping for. The entire idea is for people to use that source code that is now public to build new projects. You don't open source a project for the recognition. Why should it have to be sanctioned by Google? Why should it be endorsed by Google? I can go out and download FreeBSD, strip all of the FreeBSD marks, and brand it bertBSD and I can do whatever the hell I want with it (following the license it is under). I don't need endorsement nor sanction from the FreeBSD foundation!
joebadmo 15y ago
Android is Open Source in that Google dumps the source code into the open periodically. It's not developed in the open. Honeycomb's source was and never will be open. This is way farther on the 'open' side of the spectrum than any other major mobile OS. Is this, along with Android's open app marketplace, ability to install arbitrary third party software, and installability on any compatible device enough to warrant Google's marketing as 'open'? I say yes.
- guelo 15y ago
  > Honeycomb's source was and never will be open. Honeycomb will be in the git repo since it is what ICS was developed from. The question is if it will be specifically tagged.
zobzu 15y ago
Something has to figure out that a product "IS" not open source AS LONG AS THE SOURCE IS NOT RELEASED. So no, right now, ICS is NOT open-source. It will be the day they release the source. Being open-source is not a design attribute. It's a process.
playhard 15y ago
http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-50/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-50/
- X-Istence 15y ago
  That is the source code for the open source stuff that Apple uses in their product, it is not the full OS itself.
radiant1 15y ago
Sounds to me like a complete open sourced code is going to come to a decision when Google acquires Mototola Mobility... Will that be then end or a tweaked version for external developers?

93 points by twapi 15y ago

parfe 15y ago

Google's recalcitrance appears to stem from two issues: one is that Honeycomb is specifically designed for large-screen devices and Google is concerned that, if released, it would find its way onto unsuitable form factors; the other, hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. I'm not sure why Google caught so much slack for keeping 3.0 closed source. I found these to be great reasons and instead of dealing with a bunch of HoneyComb/Android SUCKS reviews when someone put honeycomb on a small screen device google just weathered it out and released something with some quality.

j_col 15y ago
> hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. Sounds like their were embarassed about the quality of their code.
- yellowbkpk 15y ago
  It could also be that it takes a very large amount of time to check and verify what can be released as open source code. Reorganizing the code so that proprietary drivers and internal-only APIs are abstracted out can take a very very long time. Even if nothing has to change, the time spent checking for these things was probably better spent working on Ice Cream Sandwich.
xdissent 15y ago
They got lambasted for not releasing Honeycomb because "open" is one of their largest marketing platforms and the reason many people use Android. I'm glad they're going to release ICS source at some point, but can anyone be sure they'll continue to publish code for future versions? That kind of uncertainty diminishes their claims of "open" greatly in my mind. Also, a tiny nit about the headline - it's not open source until they actually release it. Who knows when that will be.
- phuff 15y ago
  Fwiw, many is a very relative term there. Android phones are definitely mainstream. I'd say of all the people I know that have an android phone, less than 10% even know what "open source" means.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    It is relative, but many people bought Android phones because their techie brother-in-law raved about it. He raved about it because it was "open". I have little doubt this was a major cause for Android crossing the chasm, so it does seem a bit disingenuous to only be "kind of" open.
    - phuff 15y ago
      The kind of open that they do is definitely less good than I would have hoped (I would love to be able to submit patches for the bugs I regularly encounter on my N1, say). But trust me, of all the people I know who have android phones here in "Middle America" (off the top of my head without thinking too hard let's say more than 10), none of them bought them because of a techie brother in law raved about it being so cool because it was open. They all bought them because they wanted a smart phone and it was the one they were sold by the telco marketing. Period. (Okay, I'm up to more than twenty coming to mind just while thinking at the same time as typing, and still, none of them bought them because of the openness at all). So yeah. While it's really marketing-speak to say that android is open in the sense that we all traditionally think of it, to google (and much more importantly to all the telco sales people) it means exactly squat as a selling point. Which is why only people on HN (and Richard Stallman) get upset about it :)
    - sbuk 15y ago
      My girlfriend has an Android phone. Her reasons are threefold (in order of importance); 1) It's cheap. 2) It's relatively small (Wildfire S is smaller that the iPhone). 3) She uses only Google services (Gmail etc.) so it makes sense to use Android. She is what I believe to be a typical user and the fact that the OS is "open" is irrelevant to her. No-one else influenced her choice and I think this is true of the majority of the phone-buying public; the silent majority that actually matter (we "technically minded" [geeks and nerds!] really don't). Genuinely, the openness debate only has any relevance in places like this, and even then it's arguably not really relevant.
funkah 15y ago
They're fine reasons, I just think it's lame to tout how "open" they are when in practice, it's more like "open when we think it's a good idea".
- qF 15y ago
  According to this[1] data Honeycomb is <2% of used Android versions. With the versions that 98% of the devices run being open I'd say it's a bit more than just touting about it.. [1] http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve...
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    > According to this[1] data Honeycomb is <2% of used Android versions. Because it's a closed-source Android variant that only works on specific devices.
  - funkah 15y ago
    Why did they even bother, then? That info makes this whole thing less understandable to me, not more. Edit: Actually, that's beside the point. I think the reason they made Honeycomb is because they thought a lot of people would buy Android tablets, because a lot of people were buying iPads. But they were wrong about that. I'm just saying, if they did it this way one time, there's no guarantee they won't do it again. How "open" it is, is really subject to Google's whim.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
yardie 15y ago
hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. They could have used some help from the opensource community to clean up the kludge....but they don't take pushes from anyone not Google.
- durin42 15y ago
  This just isn't true. I know for a fact JBQ has reviewed patches (and gotten relevant engineers to review things) that have made it into AOSP. The Android team does pre-push code review using Gerrit, and they often lack the personnel to review every change that comes in. As a result, patches sometimes (perhaps often?) wither on the vine before anyone can code review them. Also: many potential contributors are scared off by the contributor license agreement required by AOSP. Patch contributions without the CLA can't even be reviewed. As for not releasing honeycomb, look at releasing the kludged code from their perspective. They probably didn't want phones released from HC that wasn't ready for phone use, thus giving them a bad name when awful "Android Honeycomb Phones" hit the market.
  - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
    Exactly. Honeycomb was something of a stopgap to catch up to iPad while Google went for its unified phone/tab ICS OS. Considering all the 1.6/2.1 tablets that were released this year that were just horrible, I can see why google went this route. The industry was fucking up tablets pretty badly and I can't imagine AOpen or Archos or whomever having access to a half-cooked Honeycomb source and pushing out yet another shitty product. Instead we have gems like the Transformer, Galaxy Tab, Xoom, etc. Seems to me that google made the right move. Soon they'll all have access to ICS anyway. Lets see how badly these other companies fuck that up with their crapware, questionable UI changes, and cheesy hardware (I believe Archos or some other company is still selling resistive screens). Even if they do, we already have an established set of decent tablet products.
  - mdwrigh2 15y ago
    I'd also point out that basically all tool development is done in the open in AOSP. As you pointed out, it's usually just a matter of finding the people necessary to do code reviews.
ootachi 15y ago
Because the name is "Android Open Source Project". It's totally fine to develop closed source software! The problem is that if you market something that's actually closed as "open", you're being disingenuous. Apple did the same thing with Darwin, but to their credit they started backing off on the "open source" marketing once it became clear that they were heading in that direction.
- nknight 15y ago
  The Darwin source is still being released if you want it (following the periodic code dump model), it just doesn't get much attention. For most people, it doesn't really offer a compelling case over Linux or its *BSD cousins.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
That goes against the principle of open-source. The principle is that by releasing code to the public you will get contributions from others (an extra set of eyes) that will make the project overall better. But to accept this principle to have to also accept that some people will take your code and use it in ways that you don't approve. The hope/belief is that the good will float to the top. If you don't accept this premise then you don't really have an open-source project. I can't figure out why Android open sources its code, ever. They don't seem to care about contributions from the community, and they obviously don't want people using their code in ways they disapprove of. It seems that the major reason for open sourcing their code must be something else. What I keep coming back to is that it somehow protects them (in most cases) of patent violations. I've asked this in the past: what is Andy Rubin's open-source credentials? What open-source projects has he been involved in during his long and successful career?
- km3k 15y ago
  > They don't seem to care about contributions from the community Google accepts a lot of patches from the community. Many of the major custom ROMs regularly submit patches. Things aren't perfect at the moment since all this infrastructure was hosted at kernel.org and is still down, so I can't link you directly to examples of public patch submissions and code review, unfortunately. But I can tell you they used Gerrit for that code review.
  - telcodud 15y ago
    AOSP source code is now back online: http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c73c14f9b0dcd15a http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c73c14f9...
    - km3k 15y ago
      That's correct. I should have mentioned that. Do you know if the gerrit code review website is back? I haven't been able to find a working URL for it.

martingordon 15y ago

Do we have a term to distinguish between the two different models of open source? The two models being the "development in public" model (Chrome, Firefox, Rails, etc) and the "release finished code" model (Android, most GPL components of closed source software, etc).

dmaz 15y ago
Cathedral and Bazaar works here
- durin42 15y ago
  I'm not quite sure. Chromium (the open-source end of Chrome) is very much a cathedral in the sense of product direction, but is developed in the open. I can't come up with something that has the opposite pairing though (it'd be kind of strange). I'm all in favor of some pithy term for "source released under an open license but not developed in full view of the public."
  - DrCatbox 15y ago
    Shared Source is nice, or half-open source. Or, "we take all the benefits, free workforce and goodwill of free software while retaining all control and money".
    - dsl 15y ago
      The first thing I thought of was "Shared Source", the licensing program for Windows source code.
  - elwin 15y ago
    How about "write-closed" vs. "write-open"? Or more simply, "read-only open source".
    - nknight 15y ago
      Fork-only might be more appropriate, since you're quite free to write to your copy.

dman 15y ago

If the code is unfit for others to read why is it being shipped in production devices?

notatoad 15y ago
because Google felt they had to release something to stop manufacturers shoehorning 2.2 into tablets and making thelm look bad.
j_col 15y ago
A fine question
dabeeeenster 15y ago
Because the quality of the source code and the quality of the resultant binaries are two completely different things.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- sovande 15y ago
  The source code is used to produce the "resultant binaries" so unless you have a very strange definition of "quality" the OP has a very valid question.
  - zmmmmm 15y ago
    > a very strange definition of "quality" Is it strange that, say, comments are stripped out of a binary? Or that the file names of the source files are not in there? These things are examples of aspects of quality that have no impact on the binary but make a big difference to the quality of the source.
Tobu 15y ago
Because the industry norm for consumer gadgets is short product cycles, with the production of terrible quality code that doesn't see much maintenance after the release. Most users won't notice. Even a "quality" product like the iPhone was shipped with everything running as root and a mess in the filesystem (and that's for a platform that has been maintained since).

pingswept 15y ago

"Although the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich software development kit has been released, the source code is not yet out." I believe this is called "closed source." When I go to http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/, the latest release is Android 2.3 ("Gingerbread"). Am I missing a repository somewhere, or is Google "happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it", as it's put later in this thread? (Edited to be less inflammatory)

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
There's a difference between "making shit up" and pre-announcing. It's not unreasonable for them to hold back the source code until the first phone implementing the phone (the Galaxy Nexus) is available next month.
- ajross 15y ago
  It's not "unexpected" or "uncommon", maybe. I think it's entirely unreasonable for an entity calling itself an "open source project" to withhold code under development from the public. There's no project here. But it's still better than we got from Honeycomb (or Apple, or MS), so I guess beggars can't be choosers.
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    I agree. I'm not wild about the "open" model they adopt - the code is (generally) open but the project certainly isn't and they do seem to play around with it to suit their commercial needs. But given that Amazon have gone and lifted the Android code base and reused it without any endorsement or sanction from Google and largely not to Google's benefit, Google deserve some kudos for continuing to outsource Android at all.
    - X-Istence 15y ago
      Wait, what now? If you release a project as open source having someone come along, repurpose it and use it is what you are hoping for. The entire idea is for people to use that source code that is now public to build new projects. You don't open source a project for the recognition. Why should it have to be sanctioned by Google? Why should it be endorsed by Google? I can go out and download FreeBSD, strip all of the FreeBSD marks, and brand it bertBSD and I can do whatever the hell I want with it (following the license it is under). I don't need endorsement nor sanction from the FreeBSD foundation!

joebadmo 15y ago

Android is Open Source in that Google dumps the source code into the open periodically. It's not developed in the open. Honeycomb's source was and never will be open. This is way farther on the 'open' side of the spectrum than any other major mobile OS. Is this, along with Android's open app marketplace, ability to install arbitrary third party software, and installability on any compatible device enough to warrant Google's marketing as 'open'? I say yes.

guelo 15y ago
> Honeycomb's source was and never will be open. Honeycomb will be in the git repo since it is what ICS was developed from. The question is if it will be specifically tagged.

zobzu 15y ago

Something has to figure out that a product "IS" not open source AS LONG AS THE SOURCE IS NOT RELEASED. So no, right now, ICS is NOT open-source. It will be the day they release the source. Being open-source is not a design attribute. It's a process.

playhard 15y ago

http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-50/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-50/

X-Istence 15y ago
That is the source code for the open source stuff that Apple uses in their product, it is not the full OS itself.

radiant1 15y ago

Sounds to me like a complete open sourced code is going to come to a decision when Google acquires Mototola Mobility... Will that be then end or a tweaked version for external developers?