16 ms·
Google releases some Glass source code
- wmf 14y agoMisleading headline; they released the boring code and none of the interesting code.
- ryderm 14y ago> Android code is released in two parts—changes to the Linux kernel are released under the GPLv2 free software license, just as Linux itself is, while most of the code that makes Android recognizable to users is released under the Apache License. With Glass, just the Linux code has been released. Agreed
- suyash 14y agoIt's not misleading headline, it's just a problem with tech blogs, they probably read this news on HN and stole it and tried to make it sensational to get some cheap traffic. The don't understand the code or it's implications for that matter. What is released is kernel source code (which hardly any one cares about) vs source code for google glass framework (which would be more interesting).
- DannyBee 14y agoI can't upvote this enough
- yarrel 14y agoOnce it became the top comment on this discussion, further upvoting would be redundant.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- songzme 14y agoWhat is the difference between kernel source code and the source code for google glass framework? I'm having a hard time understanding this concept. If they released their kernel code doesn't it mean they released their glass source code?
- jacquesm 14y agoThe glass code is an application running on top of the kernel.
- songzme 14y agoah ic. Thank You. So what is point of releasing the kernel code when no one has the glass code?
- jacobparker 14y agoThey are legally required to release the kernel code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
- songzme 14y agoOkay, Thank you for all your help in helping me understand. From what I understand, this article was written by a clueless writer that wanted to jump on the 'glass' bandwagon. He falsely claimed that google released glass source code when what Google actually released was kernel code that means nothing to developers and it was code that Google was legally required to release. Instead of letting this article die off, some people in HN were equally clueless and upvoted this article because of the misleading title. They upvoted either without reading the article, or read the article and did not have the technical ability to detect the bullshit. This article should not be trending on the front page.
- jacobparker 14y agoSaying that the release means nothing to developers is probably more of an exaggeration than the headline in question. Even if it is legally required it is still interesting that it has been done for those who are following the device. I'm guessing the code release contains drivers etc. specific to the device, which would be very useful for hacking. (Note also that they explain that the entire stack's code wasn't released early in the article.)
- redthrowaway 14y ago>It's not misleading headline, it's just a problem with tech blogs, they probably read this news on HN and stole it and tried to make it sensational to get some cheap traffic. While that's generally how these outfits tend to work, Ars has built a pretty solid reputation for in-depth analysis and not having link-baity headlines.
- adamisen 14y agoI like Ars, but today's Ars is less Anandtech and more Verge. Which is to say, they indulge in their fair share of link-baity gadget-blog-type posts. They're not beyond redemption by any means, but the sad truth is that Ars doesn't always do the kind of in-depth analysis that they once did.
- sciurus 14y agoWhich is rather sad, coming from Ars Technica; they weren't always just another tech blog. E.G. Jon Stokes published fantastic pieces on computer architecture there, and Ryan Paul's coverage of open source was well-informed.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- execve 14y agoCan you elaborate? Which parts are missing?
- Toshio 14y agoThat's nice. Can we have the source code for Google Reader too, while we're at it?
- blhack 14y agoWhat was so special about google reader that you couldn't just code yourself? It's an RSS reader, right? http://code.google.com/p/feedparser/ http://code.google.com/p/feedparser/ I wrote a website that read RSS feeds for me years ago using that. It's really straight forward...
- timothya 14y agoThere are many other RSS readers out there that are open source; having the source of Google's wouldn't be much different. And the part that would be different is all the code to integrate it with Google's infrastructure, which wouldn't be particularly useful to anyone who doesn't run said infrastructure.
- jmillikin 14y agoWhy? It would be useless to you; the effort required to write a web-based RSS client is as nothing compared to re-implementing all the internal infrastructure that Reader depends on. If you want to run your own RSS client, starting with NewsBlur[1] or Tiny Tiny RSS[2] would get you much further than being able to see the Reader source. [1] https://github.com/samuelclay/NewsBlur https://github.com/samuelclay/NewsBlur [2] http://tt-rss.org/ http://tt-rss.org/
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- venomsnake 14y agoSo they only released the Linux ... and now we can have Ubuntu for google glass. On I side note - it is a sad world when the fact that device is unlocked is news instead of the norm.
- pyre 14y agoWe've been living in that 'sad world' to a while.
- brador 14y agoWhy not open source all the code? What does Google have to gain from closed sourcing even part of Google glass?
- Someone 14y agoMoney. Also, the Ars Technica article does not discuss what I suspect is the most interesting part of Google Glass: the code they run on their servers. There, it's more or less the same story: they release commodity lower layers, but keep the more interesting upper layers to themselves, for the same reason: money.
- betterunix 14y agoThere are three possibilities: 1. Google wants to monetize the novel features of Glass 2. Google is bound by licenses for the technology, and is unable to open source certain bits 3. They will open source everything eventually, but decided to rush this bit for publicity reasons
- jacquesm 14y agoThere are lots more possibilities, but the one that I think makes the most chance is: 4. Google is required to release the kernel code under the GPL No such requirement exists for the other code. The big pay-off for google is that to use glass you need to use google. If the devices were 'open' then you would not need google to use glass and they'd be in a cue-cat situation.
- yitchelle 14y agoHey Google, disrupt the industry and open source the hardware as well.
- freehunter 14y agoDisrupt what industry? Google is the only player right now.
- NegativeK 14y agoThe consumer hardware industry. There are a few shops that sell/release open source hardware, but I guarantee open sourcing Glass would make gigantic waves.
- yitchelle 14y agoThe industry for capturing data, the industry for ubiquitous information presence, the industry for augmented assistance for the disable, list could go on. Imagine if IBM did not build the first PC with an open architecture, would it have caught on the way it did? Google should take the lead the open up the hardware and really make the glass affordable for everyone.
- thechut 14y agoNot sure why you are being downvoted. Google open sourcing Glass could bring on lots of manufacturers in very quickly and also create lots of derivative works. Google would theoretically have its core Glass software running on every device. It's essentially taking their model with Android, which IMHO has been enormously successful, one step further. In two years time ZTE could be making 'The Reflector' a $100 version of Glass that has been been created from Glass' open designs. Of course their will be software modification as well, but theoretically just like Android, Google will remain at it's core. I can see why Google will probably make more money by selling them for $1,500 a pop. But I think they could also make money by shear volume of increased search, maps, play store, etc. This seems to be inline with what they try to do now. I hope that Google does not pull a Facebook and start forcing advertisements into everything. If that is the case it could be at the expense of the entire Glass platform which I think will be very cool.
- cdibona 14y agoAs an FYI, the git repo is here: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/omap/+/glass-omap-xrr02 https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/omap/+/glass-omap-xr...
- doe88 14y agoIt's not as if they were making us a gift... As soon as they sold their first device it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel source code.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- dmix 14y agoJust out of curiousity, if they didn't release the code given the GPL2 license, could they be sued in private courts to release it?
- jmonegro 14y agoProbably more preventing them from selling it rather than forcing them to release it.
- doe88 14y agoI'm not a specialist at all of these questions but I would say that kernel modifications are not worth taking such a big risk. And if they wanted to avoid publishing the code of some parts of their kernel implementation maybe they could instead make a kernel module and in this case I believe it is accepted of not releasing the source code of the module. But in any case as mentionned in other comments I believe the interesting code is more high level, or server side.
- icebraining 14y agoThey could be sued, but only by copyright holders of Linux source code.
- nnnnni 14y ago...and wouldn't that be anyone who has ever submitted a patch that has been accepted by Linus?
- benatkin 14y agoSurprised it took me this long to realize that Ars doesn't have much better quality control than VentureBeat et al, but it's crystal clear now. Tim Bray's twitter is obviously unofficial, and the headline uses broadness and extrapolation to make it misleading in a way that makes it seem more interesting. Farewell, Ars Technica of old...
- hkmurakami 14y agoI've heard that Ars' commenters are of higher qualities than other sites. Does this still continue despite the decline of article quality that you describe?
- rplacd 14y agoI suspect it's true in general - it's the one thing that still draws me to /. No point of view doesn't get an impassioned defense thrown at it no matter the individual merit.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoDid you see the "A-Z of Ubuntu" gallery recently? It was literally a few screenshots of Ubuntu variants and less than a paragraph under each.
- benatkin 14y agoNope, missed that.
- tapsboy 14y agoFor completeness of the headline (specifically 'declares platform open'), Google needs to also make the Mirror API available to those, who are not part of Explorer Program, may be via a simulator.
- wilfra 14y agoHey Saurik - don't take the hating so personally man. Google gave you Glass precisely because they knew you'd rock the boat and piss a bunch of people off (and get people talking about Glass in the process). You're doing a wonderful job of that. Be proud. In reference to: https://plus.google.com/118343182830485155505/posts/ERUJ8e1yKRd https://plus.google.com/118343182830485155505/posts/ERUJ8e1y...
- hkmurakami 14y agoWow I totally thought this guy (linked in parent) was an actor when I saw him in last year's Google Glass ad campaigns, not a Google employee.
- felipe 14y agoAs a side note, that's a good example of my biggest problem with Glass as a product. Not even Google knows what to do with it, and they are expecting hackers to "show me something cool" -- Wait, what?? No, YOU TELL ME FIRST what Glass is supposed to do, then I might think about devoting some of my unpaid time to hack some "shit" for you. Unless Google also open sources the Glass hardware, any "contributions" to their source code will be benefiting only Google and not the open source community.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- LekkoscPiwa 14y agoThis reminds me of Steve Jobs iPhone first presentation and hackers jumping onto the platform. However, Jobs had vision and charisma to follow. This doesn't make me as excited.
- rpearl 14y agoJust throwing code over the wall is such a poor imitation of open source. Develop in the open--reviews, patches, bugs, design discussions--everything should be visible. Let's not pretend that this is really what "open source" is about--it's about everyone making contributions, visibly, as they happen. Anyone who takes this kernel and actually adds features is risking duplicating work or breaking future compatibility if Google ever decides to implement the same or otherwise conflicting features in different ways. This happens frequently with Android. Everyone is still stuck waiting on releases, and the fact that there is code involved is basically an afterthought.
- cromwellian 14y agoJudging by the threads, no good deed goes unpunished.
- kybernetyk 14y agoSo it's open now but you're still not allowed to make money with applications? That's a strange definition of open to me.
- new299 14y agoI'm still betting it'll be largely impossible to run a standard Linux distro on the device without a massive amount of hacking. The kernel will no doubt require binary blobs for OpenGL drivers (IIRC it's an OMAP CPU so this is likely) and because they decided they don't like glibc the OpenGL drivers on the device will be a pain to link against. I always find this annoying while hacking on Android devices.