| |||||||||||||
Google StrategyGoogle StrategyPosted Mar 25, 2011 1:36 UTC (Fri) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206)Parent article: Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)
This is the start of another FUDed up storm in a teacup, there is no-way some idiot would not try to misuse the source code, which is a reason to manage the release. Contrast KDE 4.0 alpha1, there is no way anyone would want that as I dont run Kernel 2.6.x until GKH releases 2.6.x.1, not because I am lazy, I just dont want the hassel. Until manufacturers actually ship Honeycomb devices there is not even moral pressure on Google to release the source and given M$ and FM's efforts I don't blame them being cautious.
If YOU need access for a good reason ask Google, they are very reasonable.
In the mean time I see no gain to helping M$, FM or others talk up another silly set of "patent infringements" with 6 months lead time.
We all know that, with the broken US legal system the existing suits will be in the courts for 10 years long past Android moving on.
This RENT seeking must be stopped.
(Log in to post comments)
Google Strategy Posted Mar 25, 2011 1:58 UTC (Fri) by lambda (subscriber, #40735) [Link] Um, Honeycomb tablets actually have been released. You can buy them now, and I know developers who have been working on tablet apps who have been frustrated by the lack of source access. This is not FUD. The most modern released version of Android, which is marketed as open source, does not actually have source code available in the open. While I share your frustration about the Microsoft patents and kernel headers/bionic kerfluffle, there is a real serious concern here that Google is basically only releasing sources at their convenience, and not actually doing anything to make Android a viable free platform.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 26, 2011 12:24 UTC (Sat) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
As the primary developers Google have the right to release source at their convenience, as you have the right to fork Android, but how you can say that not releasing the source, for say, 3 months, makes it _NOT_ open I dont know.
When M$ release Windows source, inc WP7, or Oracle the Java test suite, you might have a point.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 26, 2011 20:46 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
The source code of Java (OpenJDK) is available for the public (at development time). It's not an officially stamped release, but you can use it to test your code.
Binaries with that have already been spotted in the wild. The source isn't. So I have no issue with Google calling it "open". "Open" has many meanings (e.g.: "'open' as in Office Open XML"). I just wonder what is it exactly they mean.
And no. He cannot fork Android H. The source has not been released. Others do fork released versions of Android to provide alternative ROMs (up to G). Not for H, I guess.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 27, 2011 16:07 UTC (Sun) by lambda (subscriber, #40735) [Link] Given that the Android userland code is under permissive licenses, yes, Google has the right to release the source of new versions at their convenience. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with their decision. It also doesn't mean that those new versions are open source, or free software. In order to be open source, you need to release the source. It's pretty black and white. Android 2.3 is open source. Android 3.0 is not. A future version of Android might be open source again, or Google might release the source of Android 3.0 in the future, but that's just speculation at this point. It doesn't matter what Microsoft or Oracle does; whether Android 3.0 is open source or not depends only on what Google does, not what other companies do. Right now, Android 3.0 is not open source. There's nothing to argue there; you can't get your hands on the sources. Do I hope that they release the source in the future? Sure. Do I expect them too? I think there's a good chance, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. Remember, Solaris used to be open-source, as OpenSolaris, but Oracle later killed the open source project and closed development again. There's nothing preventing Google from doing the same, and while I have higher expectations of them than Oracle, the fact is that at the moment, you cannot get source access to Android 3.0, meaning that it is not open source.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 27, 2011 18:50 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Sorry, as Google is the owner of (most?) of the Android source, they can do as they very well please: Release each single change, or just never release anything. The "develop in the open" model you are implying is very recent, it became popular with Linux and BitKeeker in 2002, and is far from universal even today.
Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context Posted Mar 25, 2011 7:32 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] @brianomahoney, don't worry about me here. I don't search for patent infringements -- I just observe what's going on, which is difficult enough in the face of 37 Android-related patent lawsuits. I'll be happy about each patent being invalidated in any of the disputes, but there are too many that are being asserted against Android, so ultimately this will affect the competitiveness of the platform. If patent holders want to go after #Honeyclosed tablets, they can do so anyway if they find other ways to identify infringements. Once there's a lawsuit, they can ask defendants to produce source code (as part of discovery). If their patents also read on previous versions, they will initially assume that the same infringement pattern is also found in #Honeyclosed.
Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context Posted Mar 25, 2011 13:56 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
This isn't twitter, making up words and them with # doesn't do jack.
Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context Posted Mar 25, 2011 14:56 UTC (Fri) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
Thank you for adding your "This comment is sponsored by" link to your post. How much were you paid for that?
Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context Posted Mar 26, 2011 12:18 UTC (Sat) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
We don't worry about you FM, your spin and FUD are so blatent that they are really easy to discount. You are trying to talk up an anti-Google story and calling it "#Honeyclosed" just because some parts, which are not GPL'd arn't released yet, _but_ Google have a commitment to release all versions, and it is clearly in their beneficial interest to do so, probably quite soon.
This is so phony as to be untrue.
If you want developer access ask!
Don't worry about me in the #Honeyclosed context Posted Mar 26, 2011 12:51 UTC (Sat) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
For once Florian, I will let myself be a little drawn by you, the "37 Android patent" suits are a public disgrace and a shaming inditement of both the US Patent and Legal systems.
First, most of the patents are sham, and should not have been granted on the basis of obviousness, natural law or prior art anyway, and Secondly the legal system should have a way of disposing of these suits in a maximum of 1 working day per suit, from complaint to judgement, and the loser should have to pay all costs of the action.
Finally, that ultimately corrupted institution the US Justice Department should be supporting, not opposing, making the overturning of patents easier.
Now the real story here is Florian is _once_again_ pointing at Android as patent encumbered, that was tried by SCO and the world understands the difference. I for one am very pleased that there is at least one US corporation that has decided not to roll over and play dead to these rent seeking extortionists eg M$, Apple and Nokia.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 25, 2011 11:03 UTC (Fri) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link] If YOU need access for a good reason ask Google, they are very reasonable. But one of the primary benefits of open source code is that you don't have to rely on anyone being reasonable. There is no need to beg for permission like a poodle pining for their dog food you can just do stuff....
Google Strategy Posted Mar 25, 2011 11:47 UTC (Fri) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
> But one of the primary benefits of open source code is that you don't have to rely on anyone being reasonable.
Oh yes, for anything beyond GPL (and even there to a certain extend) entities have to act reasonable. There is no need to ever give out source code or improvements for most OSS licenses.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 25, 2011 15:15 UTC (Fri) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link]
Well I was going for idea "open source" covered the fact that you have the source code. Otherwise you just have a binary and are at the beck and call of the supplier.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 25, 2011 14:25 UTC (Fri) by xxiao (subscriber, #9631) [Link]
no it's not FUD, google has released honeycomb to other "big" players apparently, they just wanna to serve the first few elite members way before the general public, to make sure those have the advantage of "time-to-market".
this sucks, it's worse than closed proprietary code if they keep doing its own opensource this way.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 25, 2011 15:25 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
It's bad behavior, no doubt, but *worse* than closed source? That seems a bit of a stretch.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 25, 2011 17:06 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]
i agree with xxiao. it is worse because google is exploiting the good will of users who are trying to support commercial products which are open source.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 27, 2011 13:30 UTC (Sun) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
... and to make this claim, you have to prove that such buyers actually exist and matter. As far as I can tell, everyone here (meaning the open source community) already hates Google.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 27, 2011 15:44 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Everyone in the Summer of Code hates Google? All the Google engineers being paid to contribute to open source, they hate Google as well?
If you're only referring to Android then it's unlikely but possible I guess. But, open source as a whole?? Not a chance. (and I have nothing at all to do with Google other than being annoyed by their recruiters)
Google Strategy Posted Mar 27, 2011 19:56 UTC (Sun) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
Don't let facts get in the way of me trying to make a point. The point I was making is that there's been a lot of noise made about Google being an evil company, so I judged that anyone who cares probably knows this already.
And even if no open source person bought any android device, I doubt it would affect Android's popularity much. We are a tiny minority, and the average user just doesn't care. So what we think is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Android's survival is in hands of Google, who according to the FAQ commits enough professional engineering resources to make it work, so Google doesn't actually need our community's approval. (And hasn't gained it, for what it's worth.)
I also think that a lot of the whining here is going overboard. What if Google releases Honeycomb source next month? Everyone here talking about how this is the end of open Android will just end up looking pretty silly. Their FAQ states that source releases are part of the strategy of maintaining the platform's viability. I expect them to do what is best for the platform as they see it.
Google Strategy Posted Mar 25, 2011 17:05 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]
but if you read any open source license, they strictly speak to fitness of code, or lack thereof. crappy code does not get an exception from open source licensing requirements. if google felt the code was not ready for people to look at, why is it available for use on released products?
|
|||||||||||||