3 ms·

The thing is: android point releases are open source and open. Changes in the codebase that happen during development however, are not. To some, that is enough.

by Argorak 14y ago

The thing is: android point releases are open source and open. Changes in the codebase that happen during development however, are not. To some, that is enough. Using OSI definitions and everything, Android is open source. What differs is whats "open" to you. For my tastes, Android is not open enough to be "_the_ open mobile OS", it is still developed by a corporate entity that could (potentially) decide to not release the next Android release. For Firefox OS, all development, even before the launch of the OS happens in the open. If the engineering team decides to change something, it is immediately visible. I can see the cards they play. With Android, I cannot. Thats a different level. Still, thats a very personal thing and only of interest for people that want to integrate with a platform and have certain expectations. I wouldn't start a fight over it, although I will immediately buy a Firefox OS device for philosophical reasons only :), with Android, I did not.

DannyBee 14y ago
If you don't want a corporate entity, you should not use Firefox OS either. Mozilla does a bad job of making it clear, but mozilla.org the non profit and mozilla.com the corporation are not the same entity at all.
- Argorak 14y ago
  They actually do a good job at it, in my opinon. Also, Mozilla Corporation is still owned by the Mozilla foundation and aligned to their goals. I didn't write that I don't want a corporate entity, I want a fully open product. But while we're at it: Google is a corporate entity that did decide to keep development closed and showed their willingness to delay source code releases multiple times. Mozilla (be it company or not) showed the willingness to keep everything in full open from the moment they announced the project. This comes down to a question of governance.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- callahad 14y ago
  I'm a Mozilla Corporation (MoCo) employee, as are most "Mozilla employees." The thing is, Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the honest-to-goodness 501(c)(3) nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. Thanks to this structure, our work is in the service of the Mozilla Manifesto, http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.en.html http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.en.html, not in pursuit of enriching shareholders. Mozilla Corporation has been growing -- I think it's around ~700 paid folks right now -- but that's still very, very small compared to the number of people employed by its peer organizations at Apple, Microsoft, and Google. But that's irrelevant, because the Mozilla project, emphatically, is not the Corporation. Mozilla didn't change the world by having the most money, or hiring the most engineers. It changed the world through the contributions of the world. By being born of the open source movement, and recognizing the potential of an open web. Insofar as Mozilla exists at all, it exists to support you, and the open web. Consider getting involved: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contribute/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contribute/
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    FWIW: 1. The corporation will still owe a fiduciary duty to it's shareholders, it's just that it's shareholders are a non-profit. Being a cynical lawyer, while this may be good enough for some people, I'm still cynical. I've seen plenty of non-profits, even in the open source world, go bad. Hell I've helped fund/start non-profits with completely altruistic purposes, like Mozilla does (IE "Helping to open government data and standardize it", or "Provide a completely free non-advertising/non-tracking search engine for non-profit volunteer opportunities"), and seen them go bad and do evil things, despite the best intentions of all the engineers working for them. So while I agree Mozilla is in a better position than most, the idea that simply being owned/responsible to a non-profit makes it "better" is, well, wrong, in my opinion. They go bad just as easily. 2. I used to be involved in some auxillary mozilla projects (bugzilla, etc). I stopped, because of the politics and development policies. This was 6-7 years ago (maybe longer, i'm getting old), i'm sure things have changed for the better.

by Argorak 14y ago

DannyBee 14y ago

If you don't want a corporate entity, you should not use Firefox OS either. Mozilla does a bad job of making it clear, but mozilla.org the non profit and mozilla.com the corporation are not the same entity at all.

Argorak 14y ago
They actually do a good job at it, in my opinon. Also, Mozilla Corporation is still owned by the Mozilla foundation and aligned to their goals. I didn't write that I don't want a corporate entity, I want a fully open product. But while we're at it: Google is a corporate entity that did decide to keep development closed and showed their willingness to delay source code releases multiple times. Mozilla (be it company or not) showed the willingness to keep everything in full open from the moment they announced the project. This comes down to a question of governance.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
callahad 14y ago
I'm a Mozilla Corporation (MoCo) employee, as are most "Mozilla employees." The thing is, Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the honest-to-goodness 501(c)(3) nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. Thanks to this structure, our work is in the service of the Mozilla Manifesto, http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.en.html http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.en.html, not in pursuit of enriching shareholders. Mozilla Corporation has been growing -- I think it's around ~700 paid folks right now -- but that's still very, very small compared to the number of people employed by its peer organizations at Apple, Microsoft, and Google. But that's irrelevant, because the Mozilla project, emphatically, is not the Corporation. Mozilla didn't change the world by having the most money, or hiring the most engineers. It changed the world through the contributions of the world. By being born of the open source movement, and recognizing the potential of an open web. Insofar as Mozilla exists at all, it exists to support you, and the open web. Consider getting involved: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contribute/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contribute/
- DannyBee 14y ago
  FWIW: 1. The corporation will still owe a fiduciary duty to it's shareholders, it's just that it's shareholders are a non-profit. Being a cynical lawyer, while this may be good enough for some people, I'm still cynical. I've seen plenty of non-profits, even in the open source world, go bad. Hell I've helped fund/start non-profits with completely altruistic purposes, like Mozilla does (IE "Helping to open government data and standardize it", or "Provide a completely free non-advertising/non-tracking search engine for non-profit volunteer opportunities"), and seen them go bad and do evil things, despite the best intentions of all the engineers working for them. So while I agree Mozilla is in a better position than most, the idea that simply being owned/responsible to a non-profit makes it "better" is, well, wrong, in my opinion. They go bad just as easily. 2. I used to be involved in some auxillary mozilla projects (bugzilla, etc). I stopped, because of the politics and development policies. This was 6-7 years ago (maybe longer, i'm getting old), i'm sure things have changed for the better.