4 ms·

Are you confused between open source and open development? Isn't the source fully open? Edit: If I made a movie, and made the files freely available after I

Are you confused between open source and open development? Isn't the source fully open? Edit: If I made a movie, and made the files freely available after I make it and let you do whatever you want with it .. would you insist that it isn't "open" because you didn't see me argue with my editor or the 100 times I iterates on the end scene or whether your idea for chase sequence was not incorporated?

wordofx 1y ago
No they changed their development process to do it behind closed doors and release the code after final release.
- bitpush 1y ago
  Again, I ask isn't that still open source?
  - jsiepkes 1y ago
    You can't even install the resulting binaries of an opensource Android build on a phone because of gaps. And even if you could (or fill in the gaps) Google poisoned the ecosystem by ensuring almost all Android apps require Google Play services. Which aren't open source and you realistically need for all Android apps. So no, Google made sure there is no open source Android. There are just some (incomplete) source dumps.
    - bitpush 1y ago
      Gapps were ever open source. Android, the operating system, is what's open source. Are you saying because Google Maps isn't open source, the operating system is useless?
      - jsiepkes 1y ago
        I'm not talking about the Google Maps app or the YouTube app here. I'm talking about the API's which Google Play services offer which all apps use. API's which for example allows your app to get the location of the user. Or allows your app to be updated. Simply said probably none of the apps you installed on your phone are going to work without Google Play services installed. Google Play services are closed source. Which is why manufactures like Samsung need to sign a contract with Google and can't simply "install opensource Android". Samsung could live without Google Maps being installed and they could even live without the Google play store but they can't live with none of your apps (like your bank app, your Netflix app, etc.) working.
        robertlagrant 1y ago
        Can you name an OS that gives more support to OEMs than Android?
        jsiepkes 1y ago
        > Can you name an OS that gives more support to OEMs than Android? I don't see how this is relevant for this discussion? The whole point is that Android is only opensource in name. You must license Google Play services from Google otherwise Android is practically useless since you can't run 99.9% of the Android apps. When you license Google Play services Google will also impose all kinds of other restrictions on you which have nothing to do with Google Play services. Like for example mandating you don't set Perplexity AI as the default... Imagine Microsoft "open-sourcing" Windows (by doing some source drops at regular intervals) but you wouldn't be able to run all the existing Windows applications on it without licensing closed source software and online services from Microsoft.
        robertlagrant 1y ago
        > Imagine Microsoft "open-sourcing" Windows (by doing some source drops at regular intervals) but you wouldn't be able to run all the existing Windows applications on it without licensing closed source software and online services from Microsoft. Or building your own services, presumably?
  - surajrmal 1y ago
    It sure is. Open source doesn't require open development model or even taking outside contributions. It simply requires that you have access to the source and can do things like fork it, which you absolutely can with Android. I think people android to be more like Linux, but that's a very difficult arrangement and has tradeoffs.
    - dredmorbius 1y ago
      Open Source requires buildable code: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779597>
      - bitpush 1y ago
        So if development happens privately, and if they release the source with makefiles (or whatever they use), it is still open source yes? Because it is exactly what is going on.
        dredmorbius 1y ago
        I'm not familiar with the specific process. I've heard various claims that Android is not independently buildable, though existence of alternate Android builds suggests otherwise. Taking the original claim at face value, viz "No they changed their development process to do it behind closed doors and release the code after final release" (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43778333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43778333>), then no, the process isn't Open Source. The argument then becomes not one of definition (law) but of the facts of the case. Again: I cannot make a determination here, but your haranging wordofx appears misdirected and weakens your case. That's not saying you're not correct, but you're coming across poorly and unpersuasively.
        bitpush 1y ago
        So how does graphene OS people build the OS from Android? Or Samsung build Android for their phones? Or Motorola? Do you think Google is compiling the OS for these folks, and releasing to them?
dredmorbius 1y ago
Free Software Foundation General Public License version 2: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html> That's generally interpreted to mean that the build environment or build system is included in the requirements of the licence. This is included in FSF's Free Software Definition as well: <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> OSI's Open Source Definition includes substantively similar language: The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. <https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd> Answering your question then, no, source absent build prerequisites / systems does not satisfy either FSF's Free Software Definition or the subsequent Open Source Definition by the Open Source Initiative.

wordofx 1y ago

No they changed their development process to do it behind closed doors and release the code after final release.

bitpush 1y ago
Again, I ask isn't that still open source?
- jsiepkes 1y ago
  You can't even install the resulting binaries of an opensource Android build on a phone because of gaps. And even if you could (or fill in the gaps) Google poisoned the ecosystem by ensuring almost all Android apps require Google Play services. Which aren't open source and you realistically need for all Android apps. So no, Google made sure there is no open source Android. There are just some (incomplete) source dumps.
  - bitpush 1y ago
    Gapps were ever open source. Android, the operating system, is what's open source. Are you saying because Google Maps isn't open source, the operating system is useless?
    - jsiepkes 1y ago
      I'm not talking about the Google Maps app or the YouTube app here. I'm talking about the API's which Google Play services offer which all apps use. API's which for example allows your app to get the location of the user. Or allows your app to be updated. Simply said probably none of the apps you installed on your phone are going to work without Google Play services installed. Google Play services are closed source. Which is why manufactures like Samsung need to sign a contract with Google and can't simply "install opensource Android". Samsung could live without Google Maps being installed and they could even live without the Google play store but they can't live with none of your apps (like your bank app, your Netflix app, etc.) working.
      - robertlagrant 1y ago
        Can you name an OS that gives more support to OEMs than Android?
        jsiepkes 1y ago
        > Can you name an OS that gives more support to OEMs than Android? I don't see how this is relevant for this discussion? The whole point is that Android is only opensource in name. You must license Google Play services from Google otherwise Android is practically useless since you can't run 99.9% of the Android apps. When you license Google Play services Google will also impose all kinds of other restrictions on you which have nothing to do with Google Play services. Like for example mandating you don't set Perplexity AI as the default... Imagine Microsoft "open-sourcing" Windows (by doing some source drops at regular intervals) but you wouldn't be able to run all the existing Windows applications on it without licensing closed source software and online services from Microsoft.
        robertlagrant 1y ago
        > Imagine Microsoft "open-sourcing" Windows (by doing some source drops at regular intervals) but you wouldn't be able to run all the existing Windows applications on it without licensing closed source software and online services from Microsoft. Or building your own services, presumably?
- surajrmal 1y ago
  It sure is. Open source doesn't require open development model or even taking outside contributions. It simply requires that you have access to the source and can do things like fork it, which you absolutely can with Android. I think people android to be more like Linux, but that's a very difficult arrangement and has tradeoffs.
  - dredmorbius 1y ago
    Open Source requires buildable code: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779597>
    - bitpush 1y ago
      So if development happens privately, and if they release the source with makefiles (or whatever they use), it is still open source yes? Because it is exactly what is going on.
      - dredmorbius 1y ago
        I'm not familiar with the specific process. I've heard various claims that Android is not independently buildable, though existence of alternate Android builds suggests otherwise. Taking the original claim at face value, viz "No they changed their development process to do it behind closed doors and release the code after final release" (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43778333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43778333>), then no, the process isn't Open Source. The argument then becomes not one of definition (law) but of the facts of the case. Again: I cannot make a determination here, but your haranging wordofx appears misdirected and weakens your case. That's not saying you're not correct, but you're coming across poorly and unpersuasively.
        bitpush 1y ago
        So how does graphene OS people build the OS from Android? Or Samsung build Android for their phones? Or Motorola? Do you think Google is compiling the OS for these folks, and releasing to them?

dredmorbius 1y ago

Free Software Foundation General Public License version 2: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html> That's generally interpreted to mean that the build environment or build system is included in the requirements of the licence. This is included in FSF's Free Software Definition as well: <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> OSI's Open Source Definition includes substantively similar language: The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. <https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd> Answering your question then, no, source absent build prerequisites / systems does not satisfy either FSF's Free Software Definition or the subsequent Open Source Definition by the Open Source Initiative.