Ooookay [LWN.net]

Ooookay

Posted Apr 3, 2009 8:11 UTC (Fri) by cate (subscriber, #1359)
In reply to: Ooookay by khim
Parent article: Android and Open Source (ABN)

Hmm, but the community choose EGCS and a lot of user went to xemacs. Glibc
was developed in a more open way, outside FSF. (you can still "cp" and
"make" with old program, so in some program the developement was not an
important issue). These was signal that community don't like closed development (and since 15 years).

I think the problem with google are the false expectations. If google started with more a pragmatic way, without tell people that open source was
a big advantage of Android, we were happier with Android. Now I start
thinking that google uses "open source" only as marketing label, and not as
true believe.

(Log in to post comments)

Ooookay

Posted Apr 3, 2009 11:21 UTC (Fri) by roberton (guest, #39680) [Link]

I agree that Google can be accused of over-selling the openness of Android, and that this explains some of the criticism of the limitations of the openness. However, just as someone can overstate something, someone can just as easily over-compensate.

Android is by far the most "open" phone OS out there at the moment on a usable phone (sorry Openmoko). By all means lets look for improvements or even alternatives, but I appreciate it for the step forward that it is.

Roberto/.

This is question of time.

Posted Apr 3, 2009 14:59 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Hmm, but the community choose EGCS

It took TEN YEARS - only when criticall mass of outside developers was formed it was feasible to go with open development model.

a lot of user went to xemacs

May be, but emacs is far from being dead and irrelevant.

Glibc was developed in a more open way, outside FSF

Nope. Glibc was developed very much under control of FSF and in pretty closed manner. Linux libc (actually forkog GLibc 1.x) is dead today. Later development switched to more open model (today you can grab snapshot from svn), but commit rights are still pretty much under control of FSF.

These was signal that community don't like closed development

Vocal members of community hate closed development. But it does not mean "community" as whole dislike it. And for open model to work you need a lot of independent contributors.

Now I start thinking that google uses "open source" only as marketing label, and not as true believe.

Open source is not trademark. And from what I Google truly believe in "open source" - but it has different view of what "open source platform is" than you and me. If you are phone developer (HTC, Samsung, Motorola or HP) - you have full control over destiny of your phone. And this is huge advantage over, for example, Windows Mobile. But if you think that Google does not really believe in the "power of Bazaar" - than you are probably correct. But "open source" != Bazaar...

This is question of time.

Posted Apr 9, 2009 3:51 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

This is kind of amusing. glibc's czar for many years has been Uli Drepper, and for much of that period he and RMS were barely on speaking terms. He even put anti-FSF rants in release tarballs a couple of times, even though the FSF held copyright on the code (because Drepper's employer, which was also not in control of Drepper, had a blanket assignment agreement).

The FSF had tight control of glibc? In their dreams.

Try to talk some time with Drepper

Posted Apr 9, 2009 14:01 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

He even put anti-FSF rants in release tarballs a couple of times, even though the FSF held copyright on the code (because Drepper's employer, which was also not in control of Drepper, had a blanket assignment agreement).

And what does it prove? The fact that FSF has think skin? Sorry, but FSF controlled what it wanted to control: licensing issues, mostly. Like it does with GCC today. Drepper and RMS "were barely on speaking terms" because RMS flat out refused to do some things Uli felt sensible: include some code with questionable ancestry, give access to the GLibc development to some people who refused to sign agreements with FSF, etc. On the other hand technical direction of Glibc development were never FSF-dictated. Does it constiture "tight control of glibc", or not? This is in the eyes of beholder, but I can gurantee you that neither Sergey Brin nor Larry Page control technical issues of Adroid development while they do certainly worry about legal issues (where to get license for codecs, how to make it possible to play video and not get sued, etc).