7 ms·

Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project

by kgarten 14y ago

Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project compare it to Android. Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term, not in it's original meaning ... (or at least in how I understand open source)

neya 14y ago
Really? The last time I checked I was able to download the source code and do something with it on my own. Could you please justify your statement?
- anextio 14y ago
  Because Google and everyone else in the Android ecosystem* don't care. *EDIT: I don't mean third party developers when I said 'ecosystem'. I mean the manufacturers. They're in it for a profit like everyone else, and "open" is just a good a marketing strategy toward tech-minded people as any other. Consumers, on the other hand, still do not care.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    That's not what the definition of "Open" is.
  - john_i 14y ago
    But why should it matter whether they are in it for the money or not. The fact of the matter is that their source is open and people can take it and do things with it.
- kgarten 14y ago
  For me open source means something else. Maemo was a real open source platform. Android is not: 1. You can download part of the source (part is closed). 2. The source you can download and compile does not run on any phone (without some binaries). 3. Can you please send me the svn link to the newest pre-release version of Android (newer then Jelly Bean)? So as a recap you can download part of the OS as source code. That's something you can also do for iOS. Apple gives you part s to download (to comply with licenses). Admitted Android is way more open than iOS. Yet, to call it open-source discredits any real open source projects like Debian. Just because you get some source dump from Doom e.g., after it's been developed, does not make it open source, at least not in my definition. Doom was still a closed source project, as Android is. You just get some source dumps once in a while. Downvote me as much as you want ;) Edit: fixed a typo
  - kondor6c 14y ago
    I don't think a downvote is necessary :) It seems as though you're coming down on Android pretty hard. On my laptop I can't get my Broadcom wireless card to work without binaries. I also can't get my NVIDIA graphics card working either. Is that the fault of Debian? Does that make Debian any less open? It's more the fault of the hardware provider. I don't think that Android takes away from Debian at all. I think the open-ness lies in the licensing. For example, is qmail open source?
    - kgarten 14y ago
      Here the problem ... Google partners with handset manufacturers and markets Android as open / open-source. For me the core functionalities of a smart phone are to call smb., mail, maps and installing 3rd party apps. All four are NOT open-source in any definition (3g modem, gmail, google maps and play). No Debian is not at fault there, yet the debian community does not have direct links and influence on hardware manufacturers. Imagine a Debian, where the most of it is open source (after some time), yet the core functionalities you use daily are all closed source. Is it still open-source? :)
  - sp332 14y ago
    I think you're probably just using the wrong term. Android does not have an open development model (which is certainly a downside), but they are certainly open-source.
deelowe 14y ago
I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is released and generally pretty soon after phones start shipping (honeycomb was a different story and Google's statements on the matter have been proven to be true with the new combined tablet and phone releases). Look, if android wasn't open source, projets like this would be a lot less successful: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/ http://www.cyanogenmod.com/
- flatline3 14y ago
  The point at which Apple's culture significantly shifted away from open source was the point at which they hid all their source code until after the OS was released. This completely breaks the OSS community and contribution model. Back in 2002, it was possible to contribute code to the current in-development version of Mac OS X. Now it's not, and iOS-specific OS code isn't provided at all.
  - deelowe 14y ago
    Ok? What's this have to do with android? An anecdote is just that. We can't compare past Apple behavior to that of Google. They are very different companies in many ways.
    - flatline3 14y ago
      It means that: A) closed development breaks the OSS community model -- that's not anecdote, just fact. B) We have a past example of the slippery slope of closed development.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  Sigh, this whole Android is open or not argument is degenerating into the kind of arguments over 'Copyright infringement vs. Stealing'. Here's one good solution, call the open Android as Androidium(on the lines of Chrome vs. Chromium). Very good article on the openness of Android and to implement the above proposal. http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-how-open-is-it-21664 http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-ho... >Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is released and generally pretty soon after phones start shipping (honeycomb was a different story and Google's statements on the matter have been proven to be true with the new combined tablet and phone releases). The problem came to fore when Acer got threatened with being cut off early access etc. when they wanted to launch other phones with Alibaba OS (Aliyun) on them. It's sort of a Android fork, but that's legal, but still Acer had to fold under the pressure or force getting cut off from their mobile business. Early access is much more important to OEMs than you make it seem to be and being able to fork is the core tenet of open source. >Look, if android wasn't open source, projets like this would be a lot less successful: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/ http://www.cyanogenmod.com/ You know what, barely anyone would use CM if they couldn't get access to the Play Store and Google Apps like Map. So they download it illegally from other sources. CM used to provide them but got a warning from Google. So right now they wink-wink-nudge-nudge towards the Play Store.
mtgx 14y ago
I think you mean "not very open", as in not community built, or some other type of extreme openness like that (open <-> close is a scale, it's not black or white). But I'd argue that while Android should remain open source (you can use the source once it's ready), it should be even more "closed", in the sense that Google needs to have a lot more control over what the manufacturers/their partners can do with Android. Why? Because it's the only way to ensure a cohesive "ecosystem" that helps not only Google and their Android users, but also the manufacturers themselves in the long run. After all, if everyone had their own little fork of Android, and there wouldn't be an "ecosystem" anymore, that wouldn't benefit them at all, as these days it's all about "platform wars", and splitting one big platform into 10 different ones would actually hurt the manufacturers, not help them. This is why I think Google needs to "close" Android even more i.e. standardize it a lot more, and even demand from manufacturers to release their drivers. It would be awesome if they told them to release open source drivers, but even closed source ones would be useful, because if everyone did this, Android could actually (eventually) work like Windows. You would be able to install "Android" on any 2-3 year old smartphone or tablet. But that's only if the manufacturers would be forced to release those drivers and maintain the support for that amount of time. And that's only possible if the Android ecosystem becomes a little tigher/more closed, or "less open" (as in manufacturers can't do whatever they want, and they must obey a set of rules for the well being of the ecosystem).
- xentronium 14y ago
  They are already exerting control over what their vendors can and can't do. See asus aliyun debacle.
  - staplesowns 14y ago
    Acer
    - xentronium 14y ago
      I should proofread my comments better, acer indeed.
  - 14y ago
w1ntermute 14y ago
> Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term Oh really? https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429
- alayne 14y ago
  Dumping your source code into a repository after release may technically be open source, but it isn't in the spirit of community developed open source.
- rimantas 14y ago
  Have you tried that? What have you got? There is some interesting thinking there going on. Apple releases lame maps and everyone goes "Android is superior there", but when you cannot get for the source of this app for android then we get "Maps are not really Android".
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    The issue with Maps is the data. Open source is about code, not data.
    - kgarten 14y ago
      Yes, then what about the source code for google maps, gmail and google play? Are they open source? Do you get them doing your git checkout?
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
        My point is that the value of Google Maps is not in the interface, it's in the data. Apple Maps has the interface down ― that's the easy part. Google has never claimed that apps specific to its services were part of Android to begin with, so your point is moot.

by kgarten 14y ago

neya 14y ago

Really? The last time I checked I was able to download the source code and do something with it on my own. Could you please justify your statement?

anextio 14y ago
Because Google and everyone else in the Android ecosystem* don't care. *EDIT: I don't mean third party developers when I said 'ecosystem'. I mean the manufacturers. They're in it for a profit like everyone else, and "open" is just a good a marketing strategy toward tech-minded people as any other. Consumers, on the other hand, still do not care.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  That's not what the definition of "Open" is.
- john_i 14y ago
  But why should it matter whether they are in it for the money or not. The fact of the matter is that their source is open and people can take it and do things with it.
kgarten 14y ago
For me open source means something else. Maemo was a real open source platform. Android is not: 1. You can download part of the source (part is closed). 2. The source you can download and compile does not run on any phone (without some binaries). 3. Can you please send me the svn link to the newest pre-release version of Android (newer then Jelly Bean)? So as a recap you can download part of the OS as source code. That's something you can also do for iOS. Apple gives you part s to download (to comply with licenses). Admitted Android is way more open than iOS. Yet, to call it open-source discredits any real open source projects like Debian. Just because you get some source dump from Doom e.g., after it's been developed, does not make it open source, at least not in my definition. Doom was still a closed source project, as Android is. You just get some source dumps once in a while. Downvote me as much as you want ;) Edit: fixed a typo
- kondor6c 14y ago
  I don't think a downvote is necessary :) It seems as though you're coming down on Android pretty hard. On my laptop I can't get my Broadcom wireless card to work without binaries. I also can't get my NVIDIA graphics card working either. Is that the fault of Debian? Does that make Debian any less open? It's more the fault of the hardware provider. I don't think that Android takes away from Debian at all. I think the open-ness lies in the licensing. For example, is qmail open source?
  - kgarten 14y ago
    Here the problem ... Google partners with handset manufacturers and markets Android as open / open-source. For me the core functionalities of a smart phone are to call smb., mail, maps and installing 3rd party apps. All four are NOT open-source in any definition (3g modem, gmail, google maps and play). No Debian is not at fault there, yet the debian community does not have direct links and influence on hardware manufacturers. Imagine a Debian, where the most of it is open source (after some time), yet the core functionalities you use daily are all closed source. Is it still open-source? :)
- sp332 14y ago
  I think you're probably just using the wrong term. Android does not have an open development model (which is certainly a downside), but they are certainly open-source.

deelowe 14y ago

I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is released and generally pretty soon after phones start shipping (honeycomb was a different story and Google's statements on the matter have been proven to be true with the new combined tablet and phone releases). Look, if android wasn't open source, projets like this would be a lot less successful: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/ http://www.cyanogenmod.com/

flatline3 14y ago
The point at which Apple's culture significantly shifted away from open source was the point at which they hid all their source code until after the OS was released. This completely breaks the OSS community and contribution model. Back in 2002, it was possible to contribute code to the current in-development version of Mac OS X. Now it's not, and iOS-specific OS code isn't provided at all.
- deelowe 14y ago
  Ok? What's this have to do with android? An anecdote is just that. We can't compare past Apple behavior to that of Google. They are very different companies in many ways.
  - flatline3 14y ago
    It means that: A) closed development breaks the OSS community model -- that's not anecdote, just fact. B) We have a past example of the slippery slope of closed development.
cooldeal 14y ago
Sigh, this whole Android is open or not argument is degenerating into the kind of arguments over 'Copyright infringement vs. Stealing'. Here's one good solution, call the open Android as Androidium(on the lines of Chrome vs. Chromium). Very good article on the openness of Android and to implement the above proposal. http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-how-open-is-it-21664 http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-ho... >Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is released and generally pretty soon after phones start shipping (honeycomb was a different story and Google's statements on the matter have been proven to be true with the new combined tablet and phone releases). The problem came to fore when Acer got threatened with being cut off early access etc. when they wanted to launch other phones with Alibaba OS (Aliyun) on them. It's sort of a Android fork, but that's legal, but still Acer had to fold under the pressure or force getting cut off from their mobile business. Early access is much more important to OEMs than you make it seem to be and being able to fork is the core tenet of open source. >Look, if android wasn't open source, projets like this would be a lot less successful: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/ http://www.cyanogenmod.com/ You know what, barely anyone would use CM if they couldn't get access to the Play Store and Google Apps like Map. So they download it illegally from other sources. CM used to provide them but got a warning from Google. So right now they wink-wink-nudge-nudge towards the Play Store.

mtgx 14y ago

I think you mean "not very open", as in not community built, or some other type of extreme openness like that (open <-> close is a scale, it's not black or white). But I'd argue that while Android should remain open source (you can use the source once it's ready), it should be even more "closed", in the sense that Google needs to have a lot more control over what the manufacturers/their partners can do with Android. Why? Because it's the only way to ensure a cohesive "ecosystem" that helps not only Google and their Android users, but also the manufacturers themselves in the long run. After all, if everyone had their own little fork of Android, and there wouldn't be an "ecosystem" anymore, that wouldn't benefit them at all, as these days it's all about "platform wars", and splitting one big platform into 10 different ones would actually hurt the manufacturers, not help them. This is why I think Google needs to "close" Android even more i.e. standardize it a lot more, and even demand from manufacturers to release their drivers. It would be awesome if they told them to release open source drivers, but even closed source ones would be useful, because if everyone did this, Android could actually (eventually) work like Windows. You would be able to install "Android" on any 2-3 year old smartphone or tablet. But that's only if the manufacturers would be forced to release those drivers and maintain the support for that amount of time. And that's only possible if the Android ecosystem becomes a little tigher/more closed, or "less open" (as in manufacturers can't do whatever they want, and they must obey a set of rules for the well being of the ecosystem).

xentronium 14y ago
They are already exerting control over what their vendors can and can't do. See asus aliyun debacle.
- staplesowns 14y ago
  Acer
  - xentronium 14y ago
    I should proofread my comments better, acer indeed.
- 14y ago

w1ntermute 14y ago

> Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term Oh really? https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429

alayne 14y ago
Dumping your source code into a repository after release may technically be open source, but it isn't in the spirit of community developed open source.
rimantas 14y ago
Have you tried that? What have you got? There is some interesting thinking there going on. Apple releases lame maps and everyone goes "Android is superior there", but when you cannot get for the source of this app for android then we get "Maps are not really Android".
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  The issue with Maps is the data. Open source is about code, not data.
  - kgarten 14y ago
    Yes, then what about the source code for google maps, gmail and google play? Are they open source? Do you get them doing your git checkout?
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      My point is that the value of Google Maps is not in the interface, it's in the data. Apple Maps has the interface down ― that's the easy part. Google has never claimed that apps specific to its services were part of Android to begin with, so your point is moot.