5 ms·

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 c

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 2y ago
Open Source requires buildable code: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779597>
- bitpush 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
        I've heard various claims that Android is not independently buildable, though existence of alternate Android builds suggests otherwise. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43788459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43788459> You're continuing to argue fact as if you're arguing law, which again, greatly weakens your overall argument, in addition to being needlessly confrontational and aggressive.

dredmorbius 2y ago

Open Source requires buildable code: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779597>

bitpush 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
      I've heard various claims that Android is not independently buildable, though existence of alternate Android builds suggests otherwise. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43788459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43788459> You're continuing to argue fact as if you're arguing law, which again, greatly weakens your overall argument, in addition to being needlessly confrontational and aggressive.