5 ms·

http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/

by neya 14y ago

taligent 14y ago
Actually Android is closer to shared source than open source. A typical open source project has an open repository, allows third party contributors, open issue tracking etc. Last time I checked Android had none of these and only released source code after a release.
- myko 14y ago
  https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open,n,z https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open,n,z
- bookwormAT 14y ago
  No, Android is a open source project. Open Source does not require a community driven process. When Google releases a snapshot of Android under the Apache license, then this code is open source.
- yohui 14y ago
  Downloading the Source Tree: https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html android Git repositories: https://android.googlesource.com/ https://android.googlesource.com/ Submitting Patches: https://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html https://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html View Patches: https://android-review.googlesource.com/ https://android-review.googlesource.com/ View Issues: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/ https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/ > only released source code after a release Granted. They don't release before they release.
  - neya 14y ago
    He is a well known troll. Don't feed him. But thanks for clarifying anyway.
Steko 14y ago
It bears repeating that "what we call Android" is more then just what is available as open source. It's all that plus a lot of closed source: Maps, Play, Gmail, etc.
- myko 14y ago
  Maybe what _you_ call Android. I don't think most of us fall into that category. What do you call the OS running on the Nook or Kindle?
  - shinratdr 14y ago
    Android fork? AOSP? Something besides "Android" because what consumers know as "Android" includes Gmail and Google Play.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - bookwormAT 14y ago
      Android is a technical term. I don't think it is important to this discussion what the press/ "average" consumer think the word Android means, because they are not part of this discussion. Consumers/press also have a very different meaning for the word "hacker" than most of us here have. Yet we can still use the original term here without getting confused. Gmail and Google Play are not Android, they are pieces of an app suite from Google. Samsung licensing Google Apps for their android-based operating system is not that different from Samsung licensing Adobe reader for their Android-based operating system. And Amazon is not making a fork. Amazon's software is fully compatible with Android 4.0.3. Android is what you find at http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/
      - shinratdr 14y ago
        > Android is a technical term. So why do carriers sell those devices as Android smartphones then? Why does Bell run a campaign advertising "Android superphones" as gifts for the holidays? Because it's not a technical term, it's what people call devices that run Android. "My Android" like "My Mac" or "My iPhone. I would love to hear you argue that "Mac" or "iPhone" is a technical term. In that scenario, they instantly roll Google Play, Gmail, and the various other apps that ship on all Google-approved Android devices into the mix. > I don't think it is important to this discussion what the press/ "average" consumer think the word Android means, because they are not part of this discussion. Yes, they are. That was the point of the "most of us" comment. > Yet we can still use the original term here without getting confused. Maybe die-hard Android fans can. Everyone else associates Android with the Market, Gmail and various other apps just like they associate iOS with the App Store. > Samsung licensing Google Apps for their android-based operating system is not that different from Samsung licensing Adobe reader for their Android-based operating system. That could be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Why don't you go ask Microsoft about the differences between shipping applications with the OS you build and negotiating with 3rd party software vendors and get back to me. > And Amazon is not making a fork. Amazon's software is fully compatible with Android 4.0.3. Compatibility with applications has nothing to do with whether or not software is a fork or not. It simply implies a split development path. > Android is what you find at http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/ No, it isn't. It's a stripped down subset missing most things associated with Android as being good or useful, like the Market or Gmail. I personally call that AOSP, because that's what it is. Its own separate thing.

http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/

by neya 14y ago

http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/

Actually Android is closer to shared source than open source. A typical open source project has an open repository, allows third party contributors, open issue tracking etc. Last time I checked Android had none of these and only released source code after a release.

myko 14y ago
https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open,n,z https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open,n,z
bookwormAT 14y ago
No, Android is a open source project. Open Source does not require a community driven process. When Google releases a snapshot of Android under the Apache license, then this code is open source.
yohui 14y ago
Downloading the Source Tree: https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html android Git repositories: https://android.googlesource.com/ https://android.googlesource.com/ Submitting Patches: https://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html https://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html View Patches: https://android-review.googlesource.com/ https://android-review.googlesource.com/ View Issues: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/ https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/ > only released source code after a release Granted. They don't release before they release.
- neya 14y ago
  He is a well known troll. Don't feed him. But thanks for clarifying anyway.

Steko 14y ago

It bears repeating that "what we call Android" is more then just what is available as open source. It's all that plus a lot of closed source: Maps, Play, Gmail, etc.

myko 14y ago
Maybe what _you_ call Android. I don't think most of us fall into that category. What do you call the OS running on the Nook or Kindle?
- shinratdr 14y ago
  Android fork? AOSP? Something besides "Android" because what consumers know as "Android" includes Gmail and Google Play.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - bookwormAT 14y ago
    Android is a technical term. I don't think it is important to this discussion what the press/ "average" consumer think the word Android means, because they are not part of this discussion. Consumers/press also have a very different meaning for the word "hacker" than most of us here have. Yet we can still use the original term here without getting confused. Gmail and Google Play are not Android, they are pieces of an app suite from Google. Samsung licensing Google Apps for their android-based operating system is not that different from Samsung licensing Adobe reader for their Android-based operating system. And Amazon is not making a fork. Amazon's software is fully compatible with Android 4.0.3. Android is what you find at http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/
    - shinratdr 14y ago
      > Android is a technical term. So why do carriers sell those devices as Android smartphones then? Why does Bell run a campaign advertising "Android superphones" as gifts for the holidays? Because it's not a technical term, it's what people call devices that run Android. "My Android" like "My Mac" or "My iPhone. I would love to hear you argue that "Mac" or "iPhone" is a technical term. In that scenario, they instantly roll Google Play, Gmail, and the various other apps that ship on all Google-approved Android devices into the mix. > I don't think it is important to this discussion what the press/ "average" consumer think the word Android means, because they are not part of this discussion. Yes, they are. That was the point of the "most of us" comment. > Yet we can still use the original term here without getting confused. Maybe die-hard Android fans can. Everyone else associates Android with the Market, Gmail and various other apps just like they associate iOS with the App Store. > Samsung licensing Google Apps for their android-based operating system is not that different from Samsung licensing Adobe reader for their Android-based operating system. That could be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Why don't you go ask Microsoft about the differences between shipping applications with the OS you build and negotiating with 3rd party software vendors and get back to me. > And Amazon is not making a fork. Amazon's software is fully compatible with Android 4.0.3. Compatibility with applications has nothing to do with whether or not software is a fork or not. It simply implies a split development path. > Android is what you find at http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/ No, it isn't. It's a stripped down subset missing most things associated with Android as being good or useful, like the Market or Gmail. I personally call that AOSP, because that's what it is. Its own separate thing.