6 ms·

In the past, I've spent a fair bit of time criticizing Google for calling Android "open source", but not releasing the source. Now that it appears that they are

In the past, I've spent a fair bit of time criticizing Google for calling Android "open source", but not releasing the source. Now that it appears that they are actually doing it, let me be the first to say that this is great. Well done, Google.

cookiecaper 15y ago
You know that Honeycomb was the only distribution for which Google did not release the source, right?
vladd 15y ago
What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ). This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's source code in the future with a significant delay compared to early-access partners. There's no reason to congratulate them now nor complain louder some months from now, they'll continue to do what makes sense for them from a business standpoint. The only news are the yet-to-be-discovered jewels in the just-released source code.
- shareme 15y ago
  ahem if you check mobile dev history you will find Nokia did the same thing with open source Symbian, etc.. No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree
  - kprobst 15y ago
    So don't call it 'Open Source' then.
  - hrktb 15y ago
    Well, if Nokia boasted about Symbian's openness, they were in the position to be criticized too. It's mostly a PR problem.
  - Steko 15y ago
    "No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree" This is a true statement but you've set the bar pretty low there with 4 qualifiers.
  - foobarbazetc 15y ago
    And look how well that turned out for Nokia. Oh, wait...
- roflharrison 15y ago
  Some people criticized AOSP because they believe the delayed release is unfair (a reasonable criticism). Other people (sheep) criticized them because they actually believed Google was never going to release more source or because needed an arguing point against the OS.
  - zobzu 15y ago
    Actually until Google releases the source you can never be sure if they're going to release it. They release this time.. you and I can only hope that they keep doing it in the future. It wouldn't be all that surprising if it would go closed source (except for key partners) at some point (and except for the GPL content). Specially when any company could just rip the source, make it nicer looking and release their own version of Android and close the source on that... oh look it has a name, it's called MIUI! Imagine if many cheap Chinese manufacturers release decent phones with it, that cost 3x cheaper than the rest, and no Google stuff inside, no control, yada yada. Well, personally I'd get one :-)
    - hetman 15y ago
      I'd like to understand why Google didn't use a copyleft licence.
      - wmf 15y ago
        Phone makers were afraid of copyleft for various reasons, mostly irrational. Also, copyleft probably wouldn't help Google's goal of getting as many Android devices in the market as possible.
        ConstantineXVI 15y ago
        A viral license actually could have been a much more effective carrot/stick tool for Google vs. their current situation (early source access, carrier contracts, etc.). Play ball with us (Market, etc.), and we'll give you a full closed-source license. Otherwise, we expect to see full source of your modifications made available per the GPL.
- generalk 15y ago
  > This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the > fact that they will continue to release Android's source > code in the future with a significant delay compared to > early-access partners. As of today there is not a single phone on the market that runs Android 4.0. Besides, open-source does not mean open-development. They have every right to release the code to whomever they want, whenever they want. And because they release the source to most (as of now, 3/4) major releases, that absolutely counts as "open source."
  - greyish_water 15y ago
    Besides, open-source does not mean open-development. Google has done a lot to confuse this by referring to everything as just "open". They were still calling Android open even when it didn't meet Andy Rubin's own tweeted 'definition of open'.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      "open" is an overloaded term that doesn't mean anything nowadays. "open source" on the other hand has a clear definition and Android definitely fits that definition. Even yesterday, when Android 3/4 was not available as open-source, Android 2.2 and 2.3 which are the most deployed versions were definitely available as open-source. And this is relevant, because that's the power of open-source. If you're unhappy with how Google is managing the project you do have the right to fork it. Amazon did just that. Xorg also came into existence that way, amongst other projects. And yes, it takes resources and you've got to make it popular somehow and that ain't easy and I also fear that Google may close future versions of Android completely, but is it mature enough for a fork to be possible and to survive? Hell yes. Can the parent (Google) attack forks based on patents? No, because the Apache license protects you from that scenario (it's a little ironic that a pro-commercial license is safer than GPL v.2) Which is why I consider Android to be a lot more "open" than the other 2 alternatives floating around, iOS and WinMo. That's my own definition anyway, which is why I began by highlighting the meaninglessness of the word.
      - Supermighty 15y ago
- megablast 15y ago
  No, what the OP and I have criticized them for is not releasing the code for 4. If you are unable to understand this, that is your problem. Google have done good. What you are talking about is another issue, and an important one, but it does not change the fact that WE HAVE CRITICIZED them for exactly what the OP said.
s00pcan 15y ago
I never had any doubt that they would.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
They've open sourced every version but Honeycomb and had reasons for doing so.
- rwolf 15y ago
  The only stated reason I've heard is "the code is ugly," which was found to be... unconvincing here on HN. Are you aware of another reason, specifically one which would be convincing?
  - adgar 15y ago
    The stated reason wasn't that the code was ugly, it's that it didn't translate to phones at all; Honeycomb was only ever really good for tablets. There was concern that manufacturers/homebrewers would put it on phones and that doing so would make android look like shit.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      By that logic they should have never released the source code for any of Android, since Android is shit on desktop PCs.
      - hetman 15y ago
        Which would be true if everyone was clambering to run Android on their PCs.
  - enjo 15y ago
    It had everything to do with fragmentation. Honeycomb (by Googles admission) was a stop-gap to get something out for tablets. They chose not to release the source as they wanted to limit the number of devices shipping with honeycomb in favor of a more compatible (and developer friendly) version in ICS.
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      How is that related to fragmentation?
kennystone 15y ago
Right, no coincidence a year's backlog of updates comes out on the same day Amazon ships their tablet. Good luck to Amazon with merge.
- roflharrison 15y ago
  Interesting point, especially considering Google specifically said the source would not be available until the Galaxy Nexus was out. >year's backlog This is inaccurate, they have been releasing patches and updates for other versions of the platform over the last year. They did skip Honeycomb, which fits your Amazon theory, mind you, from the reviews I have read the Fire would not benefit greatly from ICS as they Frankensteined the Android experience.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    The Galaxy Nexus is hitting stores in the UK on the 17th so the release is only a few days early. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they got done a little early and decided to "push the button" anyway.
    - snotrockets 15y ago
      Just received an email from clove.co.uk stating that the UK release (at least for the SIM unlocked version) was pushed back to the 23rd.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Of course it isn't coincidence. It's not like there's a major shopping season (when people often buy new electronics) that might be influencing both Google's and Amazon's schedules or anything.
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  It won't be any more difficult for Amazon than it will be for any other OEM; phones are merging in from 2.3 as well. And that's making the assumption Amazon actually cares about being in sync with AOSP.
ubernostrum 15y ago
So... call me crazy, but I think it's wrong to praise a project which claims to be open-source for, um, actually releasing source. And honestly, the fact that we've come to this indicates just how completely Google has failed at being an open-source citizen.
- pingswept 15y ago
  Yeah, I see your point. But I think it would be lame for me to make fun of them for a year (or however long Honeycomb has existed in closed-source form) and then not at least acknowledge that they did finally release the source. I said "well done," but maybe "at least you're in compliance with the GPL" would be more appropriate.
  - ubernostrum 15y ago
    "Well done, you've put in the bare minimum amount of effort required to still get away with the open-source moniker" is not particularly flattering...
    - pingswept 15y ago
      You are correct. That is approximately my feeling about the situation, but, like giving a dog a treat when it behaves well, I think it's good to praise companies for behaving adequately because I think it increases the chances that they will keep doing it. You hear that, diBona? Keep releasing the code!
  - orangecat 15y ago
    They've always been in compliance with the GPL; the Honeycomb kernel sources were always available.
    - pingswept 15y ago
      I hadn't heard that. Is that verifiable by any means at this point? It still doesn't justify the "open source" moniker, but it's still good.
Iv 15y ago
I doubt they released the 3G stack part though. Unless I can't make a 3G equivalent to wireshark I'll have a hard time calling the platform open.
- mcs 15y ago
  I don't know of any phones being sold that have open source basebands.
  - ansible 15y ago
    I can say with some confidence that an open source baseband will never happen. The carriers won't allow it, and there is good (technical) justification for that. Basically, it is easy to mess up some "tiny" detail of the standard, and disrupt the local network for all nearby users. The compliance testing needed for any phone is huge and expensive.
  - Iv 15y ago
    That doesn't change my point : none of them are completely open source.

cookiecaper 15y ago

You know that Honeycomb was the only distribution for which Google did not release the source, right?

vladd 15y ago

What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ). This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's source code in the future with a significant delay compared to early-access partners. There's no reason to congratulate them now nor complain louder some months from now, they'll continue to do what makes sense for them from a business standpoint. The only news are the yet-to-be-discovered jewels in the just-released source code.

shareme 15y ago
ahem if you check mobile dev history you will find Nokia did the same thing with open source Symbian, etc.. No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree
- kprobst 15y ago
  So don't call it 'Open Source' then.
- hrktb 15y ago
  Well, if Nokia boasted about Symbian's openness, they were in the position to be criticized too. It's mostly a PR problem.
- Steko 15y ago
  "No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree" This is a true statement but you've set the bar pretty low there with 4 qualifiers.
- foobarbazetc 15y ago
  And look how well that turned out for Nokia. Oh, wait...
roflharrison 15y ago
Some people criticized AOSP because they believe the delayed release is unfair (a reasonable criticism). Other people (sheep) criticized them because they actually believed Google was never going to release more source or because needed an arguing point against the OS.
- zobzu 15y ago
  Actually until Google releases the source you can never be sure if they're going to release it. They release this time.. you and I can only hope that they keep doing it in the future. It wouldn't be all that surprising if it would go closed source (except for key partners) at some point (and except for the GPL content). Specially when any company could just rip the source, make it nicer looking and release their own version of Android and close the source on that... oh look it has a name, it's called MIUI! Imagine if many cheap Chinese manufacturers release decent phones with it, that cost 3x cheaper than the rest, and no Google stuff inside, no control, yada yada. Well, personally I'd get one :-)
  - hetman 15y ago
    I'd like to understand why Google didn't use a copyleft licence.
    - wmf 15y ago
      Phone makers were afraid of copyleft for various reasons, mostly irrational. Also, copyleft probably wouldn't help Google's goal of getting as many Android devices in the market as possible.
      - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
        A viral license actually could have been a much more effective carrot/stick tool for Google vs. their current situation (early source access, carrier contracts, etc.). Play ball with us (Market, etc.), and we'll give you a full closed-source license. Otherwise, we expect to see full source of your modifications made available per the GPL.
generalk 15y ago
> This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the > fact that they will continue to release Android's source > code in the future with a significant delay compared to > early-access partners. As of today there is not a single phone on the market that runs Android 4.0. Besides, open-source does not mean open-development. They have every right to release the code to whomever they want, whenever they want. And because they release the source to most (as of now, 3/4) major releases, that absolutely counts as "open source."
- greyish_water 15y ago
  Besides, open-source does not mean open-development. Google has done a lot to confuse this by referring to everything as just "open". They were still calling Android open even when it didn't meet Andy Rubin's own tweeted 'definition of open'.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    "open" is an overloaded term that doesn't mean anything nowadays. "open source" on the other hand has a clear definition and Android definitely fits that definition. Even yesterday, when Android 3/4 was not available as open-source, Android 2.2 and 2.3 which are the most deployed versions were definitely available as open-source. And this is relevant, because that's the power of open-source. If you're unhappy with how Google is managing the project you do have the right to fork it. Amazon did just that. Xorg also came into existence that way, amongst other projects. And yes, it takes resources and you've got to make it popular somehow and that ain't easy and I also fear that Google may close future versions of Android completely, but is it mature enough for a fork to be possible and to survive? Hell yes. Can the parent (Google) attack forks based on patents? No, because the Apache license protects you from that scenario (it's a little ironic that a pro-commercial license is safer than GPL v.2) Which is why I consider Android to be a lot more "open" than the other 2 alternatives floating around, iOS and WinMo. That's my own definition anyway, which is why I began by highlighting the meaninglessness of the word.
    - Supermighty 15y ago
megablast 15y ago
No, what the OP and I have criticized them for is not releasing the code for 4. If you are unable to understand this, that is your problem. Google have done good. What you are talking about is another issue, and an important one, but it does not change the fact that WE HAVE CRITICIZED them for exactly what the OP said.

s00pcan 15y ago

I never had any doubt that they would.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

They've open sourced every version but Honeycomb and had reasons for doing so.

rwolf 15y ago
The only stated reason I've heard is "the code is ugly," which was found to be... unconvincing here on HN. Are you aware of another reason, specifically one which would be convincing?
- adgar 15y ago
  The stated reason wasn't that the code was ugly, it's that it didn't translate to phones at all; Honeycomb was only ever really good for tablets. There was concern that manufacturers/homebrewers would put it on phones and that doing so would make android look like shit.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    By that logic they should have never released the source code for any of Android, since Android is shit on desktop PCs.
    - hetman 15y ago
      Which would be true if everyone was clambering to run Android on their PCs.
- enjo 15y ago
  It had everything to do with fragmentation. Honeycomb (by Googles admission) was a stop-gap to get something out for tablets. They chose not to release the source as they wanted to limit the number of devices shipping with honeycomb in favor of a more compatible (and developer friendly) version in ICS.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    How is that related to fragmentation?

kennystone 15y ago

Right, no coincidence a year's backlog of updates comes out on the same day Amazon ships their tablet. Good luck to Amazon with merge.

roflharrison 15y ago
Interesting point, especially considering Google specifically said the source would not be available until the Galaxy Nexus was out. >year's backlog This is inaccurate, they have been releasing patches and updates for other versions of the platform over the last year. They did skip Honeycomb, which fits your Amazon theory, mind you, from the reviews I have read the Fire would not benefit greatly from ICS as they Frankensteined the Android experience.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  The Galaxy Nexus is hitting stores in the UK on the 17th so the release is only a few days early. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they got done a little early and decided to "push the button" anyway.
  - snotrockets 15y ago
    Just received an email from clove.co.uk stating that the UK release (at least for the SIM unlocked version) was pushed back to the 23rd.
fpgeek 15y ago
Of course it isn't coincidence. It's not like there's a major shopping season (when people often buy new electronics) that might be influencing both Google's and Amazon's schedules or anything.
ConstantineXVI 15y ago
It won't be any more difficult for Amazon than it will be for any other OEM; phones are merging in from 2.3 as well. And that's making the assumption Amazon actually cares about being in sync with AOSP.

ubernostrum 15y ago

So... call me crazy, but I think it's wrong to praise a project which claims to be open-source for, um, actually releasing source. And honestly, the fact that we've come to this indicates just how completely Google has failed at being an open-source citizen.

pingswept 15y ago
Yeah, I see your point. But I think it would be lame for me to make fun of them for a year (or however long Honeycomb has existed in closed-source form) and then not at least acknowledge that they did finally release the source. I said "well done," but maybe "at least you're in compliance with the GPL" would be more appropriate.
- ubernostrum 15y ago
  "Well done, you've put in the bare minimum amount of effort required to still get away with the open-source moniker" is not particularly flattering...
  - pingswept 15y ago
    You are correct. That is approximately my feeling about the situation, but, like giving a dog a treat when it behaves well, I think it's good to praise companies for behaving adequately because I think it increases the chances that they will keep doing it. You hear that, diBona? Keep releasing the code!
- orangecat 15y ago
  They've always been in compliance with the GPL; the Honeycomb kernel sources were always available.
  - pingswept 15y ago
    I hadn't heard that. Is that verifiable by any means at this point? It still doesn't justify the "open source" moniker, but it's still good.

Iv 15y ago

I doubt they released the 3G stack part though. Unless I can't make a 3G equivalent to wireshark I'll have a hard time calling the platform open.

mcs 15y ago
I don't know of any phones being sold that have open source basebands.
- ansible 15y ago
  I can say with some confidence that an open source baseband will never happen. The carriers won't allow it, and there is good (technical) justification for that. Basically, it is easy to mess up some "tiny" detail of the standard, and disrupt the local network for all nearby users. The compliance testing needed for any phone is huge and expensive.
- Iv 15y ago
  That doesn't change my point : none of them are completely open source.