Google's Honeycomb Source Code Release Is On Ice 136
itwbennett writes "'Ice Cream Sandwich', that is. Apparently it's source code delay week, as Google joins Apple in delaying the release of source code for open source licensed software. Except, unlike Apple, which promptly released the LGPL WebKit code in question Monday afternoon, Google stated yesterday that it will not release the source code for Android 3.0 (Honeycomb) until after the release of the next version of Android (Ice Cream Sandwich). This is not necessarily news, since Google said last month that source code would be held for an indeterminate time and released when it was ready. It's just that now 'indeterminate' has an actual date: post-launch of Ice Cream Sandwich. The question, says blogger Brian Proffitt, is: 'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?'"
Simple answer (Score:1)
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?
Err, because no one is going to step up and stop them, that's how
Re:Simple answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Or because the Apache license is a BSD style license that allows for this.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple answer (Score:5, Insightful)
The Apache License is a free software license authored by the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). The Apache License requires preservation of the copyright notice and disclaimer, but it is not a copyleft license — it allows use of the source code for the development of proprietary software as well as free and open source software.
Apache License [wikipedia.org] (emphasis mine)
For him, it's a legitimate question... (Score:5, Informative)
End of Thread (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks, now we have nothing on-topic left to discuss. I suggest we devote the rest of this thread to discussions of ponies. I like them stewed, how about you?
Re: (Score:1)
I like them BBQ'ed...
OMG WTF BBQ'ed Ponies FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
I like them little! I recently watched the "My Little Pony - Friendship is magic!" series (apart from the last 4 episodes)... its AMAZINGLY good for a girls cartoon series, but then it comes from the same stable as the power puff girls!
And no, I'm not handing in my geek card!
Re: (Score:1)
Its for the good... They know honeycomb is not acceptable to run on phones and the second they release it to the public people will start to port drivers needed for their phones to it and run it anyways.. After that people will start to download these custom roms and put them on phones and have a poor user experience and possibly get turned off android..
Its probably a good idea overall... The only thing they could have done diffrently is hold off on honeycomb period untill ice cream sandwich was completed a
Re: (Score:2)
Let me rephrase this into a bad car analogy for you. I buy a Ford car, get it shipped to my house with out sitting in it or turning the key. Now I drop the motor using instructions from someone I have never met, modify the motor using said instr
Re: (Score:3)
After that people will start to download these custom roms and put them on phones and have a poor user experience and possibly get turned off android..
I think your almost on the mark, but not quite. This isn't about individuals, its about manufacturers of cheap knock-offs further diluting the market, and tarnishing Android's image. Motorola, and other first tier distributors won't release Honeycomb on phones because their partners and know better (and might be under contractual obligations). Second tier distributors probably won't release it because they have some brand image to preserve, and might have management with a brain. Third tier manufacturer
Re: (Score:2)
"This isn't about individuals, its about manufacturers of cheap knock-offs further diluting the market, and tarnishing Android's image."
And where is "open" source in all of this?
Sounds to me like Google is having its cake, and eating it too.
Android is "open source" which means that any manufacturer who uses it can do whatever they want with it... except, according to Google's license regarding Google mobile apps and the Android Store... they can't. Any user is free to download the source and modify it... wh
Re: (Score:2)
And where is "open" source in all of this?
I'm not arguing in favor of Google not releasing the source, I'm just correcting the previous poster who claimed its about "individuals installing bad Honeycomb mods".
Personally I'm not a fan of keeping Honeycomb closed, even if it will be released (in part) late under whatever release that combines it back with the phone-oriented trunk. It sets a bad precedent, even if I understand their motivations. There probably is a way of keeping the Android image and branding untarnished while still playing nicely
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly because it is licensed under the Apache Software License v2 which allows this sort of thing.
New low for slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
This story has been covered here before... earlier today.
Re:New low for slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong on two counts:
1) It was covered yesterday [slashdot.org], not today.
2) It is not a new low for Slashdot. Slashdot reaches such lows with great regularity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then stop reading slashdot. It seems that people just come here to complain about the news articles. No one is forcing you to come to slashdot, and if you do, no one is forcing you to click on the story link.
Re: (Score:3)
No one is going to stop a troll, either.
No one is forcing you to read trollish posts.
Personally i like coming here to see who's stirring the shit.
Virtual Water Cooler (Score:2)
It seems that people just come here to complain about the news articles.
Exactly, it's a virtual water cooler. We don't talk about what was on reality TV last night, but the cool shit that's happening in the tech world instead. But we still bitch about the office.
Re: (Score:2)
isn't it because? (Score:1)
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?"
Can't they do this specifically because they chose the Apache License v2?
Re: (Score:2)
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?"
Can't they do this specifically because they chose the Apache License v2?
Yes that's exactly right. Their kernel code must be released - and has been - obviously because it uses the linux kernel which is licensed under the GPL. But the rest of the code is under ASL which - as you say - allows them to determine whether or not they release the code.
Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
ASL for this reason. (Score:5, Informative)
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?
Actually, this is precisely why they use the ASL instead of the GPL.
google cach of old ars article with good explanation. [googleusercontent.com]
And seriously, the name Brian "Proffitt" sounds like someone trying to generate clicks.
Binspam (Score:4, Interesting)
Didn't we cover this yesterday? [slashdot.org]
New record (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe I'm missing something but this looks like a dup in less than 24 hours. That's impressive, even by slashdot standards...
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/05/11/0041250/Android-Honeycomb-Will-Not-Be-Open-Sourced [slashdot.org]
Answering your own question (Score:3, Informative)
How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?
Because it's licensed under the Apache Software License, which does not require that the source code be offered?
Sure they can do it (Score:5, Informative)
Two things. Number one: Google is the copyright holder for most of the software in question. Any community contributors presumably have copyright assignments to Google. Even if the code was released under GPLv3 (and it isn't) they would be under no obligation to release the code because they own it and can do whatever they like. The copyright holder cannot by definition, violate a license they grant. For the stuff that they aren't the copyright holder (e.g. the kernel), they have complied with the license and released the source code where required. Number two: the Apache Software License Version 2 is a non-copyleft license. Read it carefully [apache.org] and please tell me where it says that redistribution requires source code release.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure they can do it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the same WebKit code that Apple just released also used in Android?
Not the way copyright works (Score:2)
It's not the way the copyright law work. The principle that lays behind GPL, other license, and the whole rest of software publishing works in a different way.
Basically, the copyright law, in almost every jurisdiction says : you can't make copies of something, unless you own it, or you obtain explicit permission of the one who owns it : i.e. you need a license.
The purpose of the law is to stop copies which weren't allow by the owner (which theoretically could be the author, but most of the time is a separat
Re: (Score:2)
"Even if the code was released under GPLv3 (and it isn't) they would be under no obligation to release the code because they own it and can do whatever they like"
Now Google owns the code so they are free to choose the license under with they release the binary and/or the code. But if they would have chosen the GPL then they would have to release the code as well. The GPL requires you to do it if you redistribute the binary to include the code and every change you have made to the code.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think you will find that the copyright holder is *not* beholden to any license they choose for you - I can require you to distribute under the GPL, but never give you the source code and thus bar you from distributing at all, I'm not required to give you the source code at all.
Google ice cream (Score:3)
Hey, you've heard it first time from me! Google I just want 10% on this.
Re: (Score:2)
I want one of those
Re: (Score:2)
The Android mascot is open (Creative Commons Attribution license) [android.com] , you can start a business selling those
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they would get Samsung and HTC to actually make the product, so by the time you got it, it would be stale and melted and unappetizing.
"Legal analysis" from clueless bloggers (Score:5, Insightful)
It is rare to find an article that attempts to analyze legal issues on OSS licenses that is even more horrifying than the worst comments from people pretending to be lawyers on Slashdot.
I don't tend to complain about article quality on slashdot, but this one is pretty extreme. The whole article is basically some random dude making himself look like an idiot by being clueless about OSS licenses and then pretends to be a lawyer. At least on Slashdot, people do know OSI approved licenses do not require source to be provided with the binary.
AND, as others have already noticed, it's a dupe!
Re:"Legal analysis" from clueless bloggers (Score:4, Insightful)
But you're missing the point of this story, which is that Apple is wonderful because they released the code for something but Google is horrible because they're delaying the release of the code for something.
Here's a line from the summary that gives away the game:
This story is Apple P.R. Any mention of OSS or source code or Ice Cream Sandwiches is strictly coincidental.
Another way this story could have been written is: "Apple is double-plus good and Google is the sux". At least that simple statement would have avoided the danger of the author demonstrating his ignorance of OSS licenses, which has now served to obscure the desired pro-Apple message. So the story becomes about the cluelessness of an author rather than the transcendental wonderfulness of Apple compared to the awful horribleness of Google.
Whichever "New Media Strategies" outfit Apple hired to put this stuff out is about to fire one of its "social media associates" I think.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that Apple would have to hire astroturfers is ridiculous. Completely absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I think the story is astroturf. A dedicated Apple fan would never be this sloppy.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, another anti-apple post from PopeRatzo complaining about bias? What a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Son, I love Apple. Apple stock paid for my daughter's university education. I've bought a new Mac Pro every other year since that model was introduced for the specific purpose of audio and video production. My laptop is a Macbook Pro and my media player is an iPod Touch.
I don't have a problem with Apple doing well, and my only problem with their products is that they increasingly make me stay in their walled garden. If they
Source code release not required (Score:3)
itwbennett misrepresents what Proffitt said. Proffitt noted accurately that the Apache Software License doesn't require the release of the source code. Not just not immediately, it doesn't require it to ever be released.
Google is not shipping binaries (AFAIK) (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like more of the same anti-Google FUD that we've been bombarded with recently. It is a classic political tactic called "attack your opponent's strength". One of the reasons Android has taken off like gangbusters is because it really truly is open source while iOS and WP-7 are certainly not. So the game being played is to stir up a ruckus about Android not being open. The same tactic was used recently when people's hair caught on fire because Google had the ability to nuke malware apps. The story was not "hey, Android is open and safe", the story was that Google was being evil.
I'm currently working on a GPLv2 (for historical reasons) project intended to be part of a Linux distro. Guess what? I don't release the source code until it is ready for alpha and beta testing. Releasing it before basic functionality is in place simply wastes everybody's time and energy. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Google dealing the release of their software until they think it is the best time to release it. If Google released early instead then many of the people bitching and moaning now would have been bitching and moaning about Google releasing code before it was ready.
These unscrupulous tactics have been around for a long time. I'm not surprised that they are being used in this context but I am a little saddened that people seem to keep falling for the same old malarkey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Code is certainly the reason I bought my Froyo phone, I think it's nice that google released the code. I won't get mad at them unless they reneg on the ice-cream sandwich release. Then I won't buy any more.
Until then, I don't own any honeycomb device nor will I buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox is open source, and daily builds are available. Linux is open source, and daily builds are available. MySQL is open source, and daily builds are available. Apache is open source, and daily builds are available.
All are large, complex programs and platforms, with reputations to maintain and uphold.
Android is "open source" and... Google will release code when they're good and ready.
Further, 3.0 has shipped. 3.1 has shipped. And yet, Google will not release the source code for the current, shipping vers
Re: (Score:2)
IMO the problem is entirely with the manufacturers. I think it is a minor miracle that Google got them to go the open source route at all even though it is in the current limited fashion. You've got to walk before you start flying to other planets.
I was not privy to their discussions but it seems pretty clear the manufacturers were not ready to accept a GPL style license that required them to divulge the changes they had made. The ASL is clearly a compromise. This is a reflection of the age-old de
Re: (Score:2)
Android is not the most popular mobile open source project that is Apple WebKit, and the source is available for that. How did WebKit get onto so many more phones than Android and still release the source if the lack of source is the fault of phone makers?
Re: (Score:2)
"I think it is a minor miracle that Google got them to go the open source route at all even though it is in the current limited fashion. "
Hardly. Google offered them a free OS back when the iPhone was starting to eat everyone's breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
In effect, they said: "With this, you can either compete... or not. Your choice."
Or to paraphrase another line, "A choice that is no choice, is not a choice."
Re: (Score:2)
Motorola XOOM has no binaries on it? The Samsung tablet they gave away at Google I/O has no binaries?
There is a lot of open source Apple code in Android itself. You're just pushing more of Google's anti-Apple FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing is, it's really done for competitive purposes. OHA members don't really like AOSP because it means they release a product and some chinese OEM down the road gets to compete with them in a month's time.
The "With Google" advantage has narrowed because the "With Google" apps (which include the Market) are so widely pirated that every Android platform has it (without the Market, Android's pretty sparse as 99% of the apps on it aren't available outside the Market).
So I'd guess the code really isn'
Didn't you read ANY of the comments above? (Score:2)
Did you read any of the rest of this thread, or the one from yesterday? No, you did not. If you had read any of it, you would know why this is simply Apple PR FUD. Google owns the copyright. The Apache License doesn't require the release of source code. The freedom of the Apache license is the reason that Google is easting Apple's closed source, can't-look-under-the-hood lunch, so that is the thing Apple is going to attack, with lies and distortion if need be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well then Google and Android are not Open Source, and they need to quit pretending.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, guess what, we had a meeting while you were out, and we, uh, decided that you aren't the one guy who gets to say what is and what is not open source. Is the Apache license an Open Source Initiative approved license? Yes. Are the companies in question following the requirements of that license? Yes. Then the products licensed under the Open Source Initiative approved Apache license are in fact open source, and your opinion is meaningless. Open source is a big tent, and the different licenses focus on ex
Re: (Score:2)
Dogma is an interesting word.
But there is a point here: That point is that they have binaries out on several tablets and have not released the code.
While this may adhere to some technical specification that somebody else decided on at some point (and god forbid I throw some asshole out of your precious tent), it is in fact against the very nature of openness, of open source, and even of human progress.
Sorry about my dogma. And I'm also sorry that Google, a giant and powerful mega-corporation is being an as
I figured it out, you're a shill for Apple (Score:2)
Oh please, I'm the guy who invented calling his opponent a corporate shill. Don't try my own tricks on me, Mister. Nobody needs protection from your harsh vitriol, because you don't know how to aim it, and it's not very effective. You are just another loud mouth with an opinion. There are billions just like you. You are not fighting the good fight. You are not advancing the cause of human freedom, you are not defending open source, you are just yelling inanities.
Obviously, you are a shill for Apple, trying
Re: (Score:2)
Well, OK, but I have not used Apple products since the very first iTunes. I refuse to use DRM in any guise.
Definitely not an Apple shill.
I'm anti corporation of any kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, THAT is what I actually figured. Anti corporate. So am I, but there's no reason to go off half cocked and scream epithets at every corporation out there. It dilutes your message if you are just angry at anything with a corporate charter.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not FUD. Release the source, or you're not an open source contributor, you're an asshole taking advantage of other people's work and contributing nothing back.
That is absolutely not true. I gave myself as an example. Just because a project is open source doesn't mean I have to release all my work all the time. As I said before, AFAIK, Google is not releasing binaries. If you're not releasing binaries then there is nothing wrong with not releasing source.
If the code "isn't ready", then they shouldn't be releasing it at all, much less as part of a tablet that's being sold for $500, ...
As I predicted, people bitching about Google not releasing soon enough are also bitching about Google releasing too soon. It seems pretty obvious to me that the problems with Honeycomb being not ready for p
Re: (Score:2)
As I said before, AFAIK, Google is not releasing binaries.
And you've been told that you're wrong. There's a Xoom sitting on my table right now, running Android 3.0.1 build HRI66 (also known as "Honeycomb"). I've had it for two months now. If it's not running binaries, then I suppose it works by means of pixie dust?
Now Google doesn't have any legal obligation to release the source due to their being the authors and Apache license not being copyleft. But that's a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Those binaries are created and released by the manufacturer, not by Google. They are tailored by each manufacturer for their particular device. This is one of the reasons why Android has been sweeping the industry: each manufacturer has total control over the source code they put on their phones.
Your gripe, (whether legitimate or not) is with the manufacturer who sold you the device, not with Google. Since your complaint seems to be that the manufacturer (horror of horrors) is actually abiding by th
Re: (Score:2)
Xoom is a "Google experience device". It ships stock Google software, not modified by manufacturer.
I don't have any gripe with Google or blaming them, by the way. I'm confident that they'll have the code out once it's good enough for that. I was merely pointing out that your premise is wrong, and Google does ship the binaries (even if it's done with the aid of the third party).
Re: (Score:2)
Xoom is a "Google experience device"[**]. It ships stock Google software, not modified by manufacturer.
Ah. I finally understand your complaint now. You are pissed because Google didn't give Motorola any Honeycomb source code, they only gave Motorola binaries. I would be pissed too. If that is the case then it is a bloody miracle the Xoom works at all and it is completely explains the sub-optimal user experience.
Boy oh boy Motorola must be really ticked off at Google over this. If what you say is true then I would be very surprised if Motorola every uses Google software again in any device. This must
Re: (Score:2)
It's not FUD. Release the source, or you're not an open source contributor
You mean not an open source contributor to that particular version of that particular product. They've stated that they are going to release that code and given a time for when it will be done, this is entirely fine for ASL licensed code.
you're an asshole taking advantage of other people's work and contributing nothing back.
If that's how you feel then you wouldn't be so fucking stupid as to release code under a permissive Open Source license now would you? People who release code under that type of license are altruistic, they don't care what's done with that code and it's free to be used by a
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. I agree the GP is a foam-mouthed radical, but I take issue with the idea that those that choose to use BSD-style licenses are somehow more altruistic than those who use copyleft licenses - in my view, it's less likely that they are being purely altruistic, because they are using a license that they know will curry them favour with their commercial partners. On the flip side, those releasing code under copyleft licenses are doing so in the hope that it will encourage others to give the same gift as a re
Re: (Score:2)
in my view, it's less likely that they are being purely altruistic, because they are using a license that they know will curry them favour with their commercial partners.
To what end though?
On the flip side, those releasing code under copyleft licenses are doing so in the hope that it will encourage others to give the same gift as a result.
It's just a different world view i suppose, I've always seen the BSD-style licenses as more altruistic because it's just giving code away freely to be used by anyone for anything without placing any restrictions on what others can do with it. Forcing others to do things my way isn't my idea of freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
But then your generosity can be subsumed by somebody for commercial gain, ending the paying forward nature of the initial offering. In my opinion anyone using the BSD license is really just stupid and screwing themselves and the rest of us for no reason. If you use the GPLv3 you are protecting the project indefinitely and and ensuring it will be useful for all future generations.
Forcing people to do that isn't really a bad thing, imho.
Re: (Score:2)
But then your generosity can be subsumed by somebody for commercial gain, ending the paying forward nature of the initial offering.
So? Why would i care how they benefit from it? I released it as free code to be used by anyone however they want. I'm not going to force restrictions on them.
In my opinion anyone using the BSD license is really just stupid and screwing themselves and the rest of us for no reason.
They aren't screwing anyone, the code is there and it is always free. I'm not releasing something as free just to get something in return.
If you use the GPLv3 you are protecting the project indefinitely and and ensuring it will be useful for all future generations.
The project is always free, the BSD license doesn't mean a project can suddenly become non-free, just that anyone can benefit from free code whether they have the same world view or not. I'm not about to start only h
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd agree with you 100%, but you called me a foam mouthed radical. LOL
Open Source is the future. To pretend otherwise is just retarded.
And half-assing the FOSS to curry favor while secretly being an evil corporation: Well, that's just evil.
Google needs to review their situation. They need to look farther down the road, and they need to go ahead and embrace the GPLv3. Otherwise they are not the forward looking company they are pretending to be, and they will eventually be supplanted by somebody wh
Fork (Score:1)
I don't believe anything good can come from a single entity holding most of the code everyone uses to communicate with on a personal level.
Honestly though, has anything ever good come from a small bunch of people with complete and ultimate control over a population of source code, cars, state pensions, food or banking?
No, it always ends up collapsing because power attracts psyhcopaths...such as Hitler and idiots like Bill Gates.
It is one of the reasons why open source rules dictate lots and lots of distros
Re: (Score:2)
No, it always ends up collapsing because power attracts psyhcopaths...such as Hitler and idiots like Bill Gates.
+1 for going Godwin.
-1 for calling Bill Gates an idiot. I'm no fan, and Gates is many things, but an idiot he's not.
Re: (Score:2)
He never completed college. ;-)
Also, idiot might be too kind of a word for Mr. Gates. I think I would call him a megalomaniac who has been recently been displaying an alarming maniacal trend towards eugenics with his billionaire pal club.
He is not even a genius, he is just a common thief in the right place at the right time.
You don't get that sort of money by playing above the table or even remotely fair. You get it through fraud, deception, and stealing and killing people.
-Hack
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest that it'd be safe to say he was a profiteer savant who was in the right place at the right time, with the right r
Re: (Score:2)
He is not even a genius, he is just a common thief in the right place at the right time.
There were many companies at that time who were more or less at the same place. Sure, BG got a deal with IBM, that helped, but MS DOS was selling for just a few dollars.
What really helped BG is his (at that time) ability to look beyond MS DOS, start Windows development and not join the OS/2 club. In fact, his OS/2 actions were very profitable, and OS/2 never recovered (if it could otherwise.) Many other companies of
Licensing notwithstanding... (Score:3)
Based on my understanding of the ASL, they have every right to do this. But with this and other recent decisions, they need to STFU about being the most open platform around. Who cares how open it is if modifying your installation breaks your contract with your wireless vendor? Who cares how open software is when one vendor controls what's in the "official" distro? And who cares how open something is when, as soon as critical mass is reached, they suddenly decide to withhold some releases?
Personally, I care more about ongoing supportability. I'd like for the "fragmentation" question to be cleared up enough in the developer community that they are more likely to create Android apps simultaneously with their iOS apps. I'd like for hardware vendors to be forced to support at least a few major updates. If they have to stop yelling, "Open!", that's fine with me.
Of course, that being said, "Open" is a welcome addition, but if there's always an asterisk by it, then it's not a reasonable marketing bullet point.
Slashdot readers pretending to be legal experts (Score:3)
Some of the other well known blogs have their utterly stupid people. I know. Usually the stupid people on Slashdot are of a little higher quality. Not on legal matters though. They are just as stupid as utterly dumb Engadget commenters.
I don't know how you'll manage it, but do try to get this through your thick thick skull:
Google does not have to release the Honeycomb source. Not because they have expensive lawyers or some shit like that. It is because they are not required to.
1. They fucking own the source code they are not releasing. AND even if they did not
2. Apache license does not require it.
Gawd, extreme stupidity is infuriating.
Re: (Score:2)
They own the code. They chose the license. They can release it, or not. Correct?
I really don't care. Except when every third phrase coming out of Google's PR machine is "open source"...
Which apparently means one thing when Mozilla, Apache, and Linus uses it, and something else when Google uses it.
Re: (Score:2)
NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE LICENSE. The issue is the lack of a source code release. The contract that they are breaking is not a source code license, but rather their own promise to users and handset makers that they were buying into an open source platform.
It's only this one version, the latest version of Android for smartphones is available and you can download it if you want.
continuing to use Apple's open source WebKit code
And Apple is using Google, Nokia, KDE and many others' WebKit code.
Secondarily, the issue is Google's hypocrisy for bragging that they are open, calling Apple closed, and then not only not releasing their own source
you don't seem capable of comprehending the simple fact that the idea of 'open' is more than code. The Android kernel is open, the latest version of Android for smartphones is open and even the Honeycomb code is open, it just hasn't been released yet but they have given a time for when it will be released, which of cours
WHEN it is released (Score:2)
It will be licensed under a license, when it hasn't been released, it hasn't been released under a license.
No, I'm not channeling Donald Rumsfeld, its just the license isn't relevant when the software hasn't been released.
Re: (Score:2)
The Android 3 software is currently on at least 2 shipping devices. One was released about 2 months ago, and the other was released a day or 2 ago. So the software has shipped.
Ungrateful people (Score:2)
What is with all these stories lately? Apple didn't do this when WE wanted it so they are bad but Google is good.. Today its just the opposite and Google is bad.
its not like any of these companies are withholding anything they are working on it.. they all have a history of ponying up, so give them a damned chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple didn't do this when WE wanted it so they are bad but Google is good..
Apple was breaking the license terms of the software it was using by not releasing the code, Google is acting within the license with their code.
Today its just the opposite and Google is bad.
Because the additions google have made to the existing free code aren't open source and many people don't like that. However Google can make additions to the existing free code and not release their additions until they deem it appropriate and that is entirely within the scope of the license.
So the general idea is that google may not be 'in the spirit of open sour
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever read the Apache license?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Google can do this because THEY OWN THE CODE in question. They developed Android, not random FOSS people.
The thing they are using from the wider community is the linux kernel (and some tools like gcc), AND THEY HAVE RELEASED THAT CODE. The whole rest of the Android stack was developed in house at Google and they can do whatever the fuck they want with it, be it release the source or not on their own time table.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah but you could fork it and build an entire OS around it(WebOS) or you could fork it and base your supposedly open mobile OS's browser on it.
Linus said recently that open to him wasn't that hardware was open, but you could run out and build your own thing that did what you wanted with the software provided. I couldn't believe it when Linus was basically praising the Apple mindset towards open source.
Contrast Apple open sourcing darwin and webkit over Andy Rubin flipping 180 and saying, "If you want the
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, Google actually gives you all code that runs on your (stock) Android device - Honeycomb has been an exception so far and even that is temporary. For my Android 2.x phone, I can pick and choose out of half a dozen ROMs with varying features and stability, or roll out my own. Apple didn't and doesn't offer anything even remotely like that.
I don't much care for copyleft "Freedom", but openness to me, in pragmatical terms, means the ability to mod my phone, whether on my own or in a community
Re: (Score:2)
Where do they claim that?
Re: (Score:2)