| |||||||||||||
Google StrategyGoogle StrategyPosted Mar 25, 2011 1:58 UTC (Fri) by lambda (subscriber, #40735)In reply to: Google Strategy by brianomahoney Parent article: Google Holds Honeycomb Tight (Business Week)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||