6 ms·

When someone like Github does this (make some parts of their code open-source, but others closed-source), journalists don't write critical pieces about them, do

When someone like Github does this (make some parts of their code open-source, but others closed-source), journalists don't write critical pieces about them, do they? I mean, Google leaves a bad taste in my mouth since they started shuttering services like it was Christmas at the Google Service Chopping Block, but I don't see them being actively evil here. It's all according to the previously openly aired plan. Google keeps all of the existing code open source. Anyone who wants to build a fork can do so. Now if they want a hardware platform to run on, go find one outside the Open Handset Alliance ecosystem. It's fair game -- if a hardware partner thinks that one of Google's competitors can provide a better Android fork, they are free to leave the Alliance and go partner with that competitor. They will still get an enormous amount of code for free in AOSP. They just won't get all of the services that Google is building specifically for its own version of Android. How is any of this maintaining an "iron grip" in any way? Just contrast this with Apple where it is the sole owner of everything to do with the OS and app marketplace.

gibwell 13y ago
Google used 'Android is open' as a dishonest slogan to convince developers that it wasn't just a power play. That is why they are being criticized. It's not about who is more open. It's that Google misled everyone about their intentions.
- afsina 13y ago
  Prove that Android is not open.
  - devcpp 13y ago
    He meant free (as in freedom), not open. "Proof" of that is in the submission's article. It's not exactly a formal proof but it has convinced most people here. Unfortunately, this highlights some weaknesses in the GPLv2, which is supposed to guarantee freedom.
    - rsynnott 13y ago
      Android largely isn't GPLv2.
zobzu 13y ago
AOSP is so open that the previous AOSP leader at Google quitted over the lack of openeness.
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  That's a mischaracterization of his own comments on why he left. It had to do with open sourcing GPU drivers, which is probably an issue with other vendors, not Google. See: https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/9HHRURorE7g https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/9HHRURor...
  - zobzu 13y ago
    well actually while I get where you're coming from, that's still correct. if AOSP was more open he wouldn't have left. Google doesn't give a damn about openness right now.
    - tomkarlo 13y ago
      "If AOSP were more open he wouldn't have left." Can you substantiate that statement at all? AOSP's "openness" is determined by its licensing, which is a standard Apache 2.0 license. The issue was whether certain vendors would contribute to AOSP under that license, not whether AOSP was open enough.
  - throwaway2048 13y ago
    It was Google's choice to put that hardware into the phone, and it was their choice not to pressure qualcomm into being more open. Your argument itself is also somewhat of a mischaracterization, because at least Google could have wrestled redistribution rights for the binary drivers, thus making AOSP actually usable on the nexus, and they didn't even bother with that. Vendors are a convenient whipping boy when don't care about openness but wanna look like you do.
    - fpgeek 13y ago
      There's a very, very simple problem with your argument: https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers#razor https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers#razor
pavanky 13y ago
> Anyone who wants to build a fork can do so. Now if they want a hardware platform to run on, go find one outside the Open Handset Alliance ecosystem. It's fair game -- if a hardware partner thinks that one of Google's competitors can provide a better Android fork, they are free to leave the Alliance and go partner with that competitor. A good example of this is Amazon. They are doing this successfully.
- aray 13y ago
  Another example is OUYA.
  - tapsboy 13y ago
    And Aliyun OS And Baidu Yi May be even the newly funded CyanogenMod company
demallien 13y ago
Anyone who wants to build a fork can do so Not really. You will have your mainline Abdroid implementation shutdown if you do this. Google is clearly doing this to make forking a very risky proposition for device manufacturers. It's the antithesis to open.
apetrovic 13y ago
> Now if they want a hardware platform to run on, go find one outside the Open Handset Alliance ecosystem. Imagine you want to sell a Linux laptop with your own Linux distribution. You're just a small shop in California, and you're shopping around to find a manufacturer for your laptops. And you find that anyone connected to Microsoft (Foxconn, Asus, Acer, Gigabyte, etc) can't do any job with you. Would you say "that's fair, Microsoft isn't evil by forcing hardware manufacturers to work exclusively with them" in such situation?
- icebraining 13y ago
  That's not what they're doing. HTC, Samsung, etc still sell non-Google OSs, like Windows Phone and Bada. A good analogy would be Microsoft preventing you from selling your fork of Windows on those manufacturers, which happens to be exactly what every big OS maker does, by simply not distributing it under a Free license.
rsynnott 13y ago
> When someone like Github does this (make some parts of their code open-source, but others closed-source), journalists don't write critical pieces about them, do they? Github don't constantly go on about how 'open' Github is, though.
- parennoob 13y ago
  True, but Github does use the halo of "Open Source" a lot to promote themselves (or others promote them using it..e.g. http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/03/github/ http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/03/github/) while overlooking the fact that most of their codebase is very close sourced indeed.

gibwell 13y ago

Google used 'Android is open' as a dishonest slogan to convince developers that it wasn't just a power play. That is why they are being criticized. It's not about who is more open. It's that Google misled everyone about their intentions.

afsina 13y ago
Prove that Android is not open.
- devcpp 13y ago
  He meant free (as in freedom), not open. "Proof" of that is in the submission's article. It's not exactly a formal proof but it has convinced most people here. Unfortunately, this highlights some weaknesses in the GPLv2, which is supposed to guarantee freedom.
  - rsynnott 13y ago
    Android largely isn't GPLv2.

zobzu 13y ago

AOSP is so open that the previous AOSP leader at Google quitted over the lack of openeness.

tomkarlo 13y ago
That's a mischaracterization of his own comments on why he left. It had to do with open sourcing GPU drivers, which is probably an issue with other vendors, not Google. See: https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/9HHRURorE7g https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/9HHRURor...
- zobzu 13y ago
  well actually while I get where you're coming from, that's still correct. if AOSP was more open he wouldn't have left. Google doesn't give a damn about openness right now.
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    "If AOSP were more open he wouldn't have left." Can you substantiate that statement at all? AOSP's "openness" is determined by its licensing, which is a standard Apache 2.0 license. The issue was whether certain vendors would contribute to AOSP under that license, not whether AOSP was open enough.
- throwaway2048 13y ago
  It was Google's choice to put that hardware into the phone, and it was their choice not to pressure qualcomm into being more open. Your argument itself is also somewhat of a mischaracterization, because at least Google could have wrestled redistribution rights for the binary drivers, thus making AOSP actually usable on the nexus, and they didn't even bother with that. Vendors are a convenient whipping boy when don't care about openness but wanna look like you do.
  - fpgeek 13y ago
    There's a very, very simple problem with your argument: https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers#razor https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers#razor

pavanky 13y ago

> Anyone who wants to build a fork can do so. Now if they want a hardware platform to run on, go find one outside the Open Handset Alliance ecosystem. It's fair game -- if a hardware partner thinks that one of Google's competitors can provide a better Android fork, they are free to leave the Alliance and go partner with that competitor. A good example of this is Amazon. They are doing this successfully.

aray 13y ago
Another example is OUYA.
- tapsboy 13y ago
  And Aliyun OS And Baidu Yi May be even the newly funded CyanogenMod company

demallien 13y ago

Anyone who wants to build a fork can do so Not really. You will have your mainline Abdroid implementation shutdown if you do this. Google is clearly doing this to make forking a very risky proposition for device manufacturers. It's the antithesis to open.

apetrovic 13y ago

> Now if they want a hardware platform to run on, go find one outside the Open Handset Alliance ecosystem. Imagine you want to sell a Linux laptop with your own Linux distribution. You're just a small shop in California, and you're shopping around to find a manufacturer for your laptops. And you find that anyone connected to Microsoft (Foxconn, Asus, Acer, Gigabyte, etc) can't do any job with you. Would you say "that's fair, Microsoft isn't evil by forcing hardware manufacturers to work exclusively with them" in such situation?

icebraining 13y ago
That's not what they're doing. HTC, Samsung, etc still sell non-Google OSs, like Windows Phone and Bada. A good analogy would be Microsoft preventing you from selling your fork of Windows on those manufacturers, which happens to be exactly what every big OS maker does, by simply not distributing it under a Free license.

rsynnott 13y ago

> When someone like Github does this (make some parts of their code open-source, but others closed-source), journalists don't write critical pieces about them, do they? Github don't constantly go on about how 'open' Github is, though.

parennoob 13y ago
True, but Github does use the halo of "Open Source" a lot to promote themselves (or others promote them using it..e.g. http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/03/github/ http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/03/github/) while overlooking the fact that most of their codebase is very close sourced indeed.