Is Android still open now that Google has postponed the source code release of Honeycomb, version 3.0 of the mobile operating system? I’ve been reading a whole boatload of articles and blog posts on the web claiming Android is no longer open, but it seems like very few people seem to actually understand what ‘open’ really means when it comes to the GPL and the Apache license. Here’s a short primer.
This primer is a general overview, and doesn’t go into the specifics of every part of the Android ecosystem. I’m focussing on the two main licenses covering the Android operating system: the GPLv2 (the Linux kernel) and Apache v2.0. I’m sure specific parts of Android will be covered by different licenses, but most of them will probably fit into either of the two categories that the GPL and the Apache license each belong to.
The most important thing to realise when you’re talking about whether or not Android is “open” is the distinction between what you, as a distributor of open source software, must do, and what you should do. While the former is relatively clear and easy to understand, the latter is much more problematic because each individual – you, me, Andy Rubin, John Gruber, whatever – has his or her own ideas about what an open source project or company should do.
What you MUST do
When it comes to what Google must do, there is absolutely zero indication that Android is any less open today than it was a few months ago. A crucial detail that many people fail to mention – or are simply unaware of – is that open source licenses, even stricter licenses such as the GPL, do not require, in any way whatsoever, that you must make your code publicly available. What these open source licenses demand is that you make the code available to anyone who has the binary – at least, for GPL-like licenses. Code covered by the Apache license does not even have to be distributed at all – whether you own the binary or not – since it’s a BSD-like license.
This is a very crucial detail that many seem to forget when talking about Android’s openness now that Honeycomb’s source code is being held back indefinitely. The only way to get Honeycomb (the binary) is to buy a Xoom. This means that the only people who have the right to access the Honeycomb source code (the part covered under the GPL) are those who have bought a Xoom. If you do not own a Xoom, you have zero and nada right to claim access to Honeycomb’s source code. And even if you do own a Xoom, you are only entitled to the code covered under the GPL; Google is allowed to withhold the code under the Apache license indefinitely.
In other words, as long as Google/Motorola provide source code access to the Linux kernel modifications to individuals who own a Xoom upon request, Google/Motorola are fully complying with the open source software licenses that govern Android. Google/Motorola do not have to provide access at all to the code covered under the Apache license. These are the bare facts. It would be awesome if a Xoom owner (anyone…?) could contact Google/Motorola and request access to the Linux kernel source code used by Honeycomb.
Another common misconception regarding open source is that development on open source projects must always take place fully in the open. This is not the case. You are allowed to take any code – GPL, Apache, BSD – and modify it within your own organisation to your heart’s content. Google is allowed to develop new versions of Android entirely behind closed doors, and then release the source code when the products hit the shelves. Only when you distribute your software with GPL code in it do you need to make the code available upon request. As such, ‘closed’ development is perfectly fine and entirely allowed.
All this means that when you look at what you must do as a distributor of open source software, Android is still every bit as open today as it was a few months ago. Nothing has changed. As far as we know, there have been no license violations whatsoever by the Android development team.
What you SHOULD do
What you should do is an entirely different matter. Since I can’t guess everyone else’s ideas of how open source development should take place, I’ll relay my own beliefs. I believe that if you deem it necessary for your project to be developed behind closed doors, you should be able to do without somehow being labelled as ‘closed’. Development behind closed doors can make a project easier to manage and can speed up development, which in turn can be beneficial to users.
However, I do believe that once your project is released, you should provide public access to the source code. In other words, I am not happy with what Google is doing with the Honeycomb source code, as in my view, it makes the project less open. While I can understand their reasoning for doing so, I’m still not happy about it. It feels like a step back, a cop-out, an blatant admission that Google has failed in keeping Android consistent – a mistake it is now trying to weasel its way out of.
However, that is just my personal view. I know many OSAlert readers who believe development should also take place in the open, and I even know some die-hards who believe that simply by adding closed-source applications to Android, they can’t consider it truly open source. Heck, there are also those who believe that Android isn’t really open because of its wildly divergent Linux stack which isn’t part of mainline.
These are all very valid opinions to hold, but like my own opinion, they have no bearing on the ‘what you must do’ aspect of this story.
Malice or naivete
Whether Google’s recent moves regarding Android come from malice, naivete, or both, they seem to be about improving the Android experience for customers and developers, and that’s actually a good thing. However, I’d rather they do so without cop-outs like withholding source code, but at the same time, Google is not actually violating any licenses here. It would be very welcome in these already tense debates about openness if the larger players in these debates properly distinguished the ‘must’ from the ‘should’ instead of resorting to curiously* incredibly emotional language.
In the end, all this means Android today is technically still as open as it was a few months ago – but at least for me, that doesn’t really say all that much. Google should be a good open source citizen, and release the source code. If they don’t want cheap Android tablets to tarnish the Android brand, they should just do what Haiku and Red Hat do: protect the Android trademarks through a licensing and quality control program, and restrict access to Google services such as the Android Market to devices that are properly licensed.
* I mean, really, Gruber, Apple has withheld source code releases in the past quite often, and in fact, the code to the open source components underlying iOS are not made available at all, yet not a peep from you about that – despite the fact Apple regularly touts the open source underpinnings of its operating system. If there is one “hypocrite” here, it’s you.
Technically, the Xoom is distributed by Motorola, right? So you should be contacting them for the GPL-derived sources. They must have access to the sources per the GPL as well, and subsequently make them available for distribution.
True, good spot. Fixing…
Guess what? The nVidia’s kernel modifications are already in the GIT repositories for quite some time now. Since nVidia have been distributing the dev board for over a year now…
http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=kernel/tegra.git;a=summary
Right! Google are doing the right thing by the letter of the license and arguable, the spirit as well. In the interests of good business, they are not obligated to release everything/give everything away/save the planet.
This was a good article for the most part, ruined only by the “curiously incredibly emotional language” in the footnote. Why was it necessary to address (John) Gruber personally?
Ah, I’ve just read some of the other threads. So Mr. Gruber is rather unpopular around these parts? At least he makes no pretense about being about being unbiased.
Edited 2011-04-05 23:35 UTC
Guess people just got confused after Google made statements like “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git …” implying you can actually grab the Android source and compile it yourself. Rubin didn’t seem to have a bunch of caveats about ‘well, once Google decides its close partners have had time to market themselves with exclusive access’. So fine, they follow the letter of whichever open source license, but they certainly fail in terms of fulfilling their own marketing BS.
If they don’t want cheap Android tablets to tarnish the Android brand, they should just do what Haiku and Red Hat do: protect the Android trademarks through a licensing and quality control program, and restrict access to Google services such as the Android Market to devices that are properly licensed.
One of the Mozilla guys made the same point, since that’s their approach too (the whole Ice Weasel thing).
And I agree – if the problem is the potential for damage to the Android brand, then solve the problem directly by regulating third-party use of that brand, not indirectly by trying to restrict access to the code.
Edited 2011-04-05 23:32 UTC
Of course, now it’s too late for that – the Amazon version of the market is being distributed on devices that don’t comply with Google’s standards.
No, Google can still restrict the use of the Android trademark. They can’t stop the software from being used, just the name. So those devices wouldn’t be Android devices anymore. They’d have to be sold under a different brand name.
They can also restrict access to the services and repositories to only official Android release not child forks. Do like Canonical did; “fork our distro all you like just don’t claim it’s an Ubuntu and don’t use our repositories”
Isn’t this all because Google wants to prevent fragmentation by keeping the source slightly closed ?
Interresting enough it is the device builders/telecom providers which want to differentiate.
Maybe someone should define very clearly which parts are part of the ‘platform’ and need to be kept compatible. And which can be customized to their hearts content.
I don’t think it’s fragmentation/differentiation, so much as the quality of products being associated with the Android brand – not dissimilar to Apple’s attitude towards running MacOS on non-Apple hardware.
For the time being, it looks like Google’s approach is to limit who they supply the newer versions of Android to, so that each product released with 3.0 is a tested and supported configuration. So for better or worse, no more cheap Android tablets from obscure manufacturers that even Google hasn’t heard of…
You are confusing quality and price. High price does not automatically imply high quality.
Just take a look at Motorola XOOM: high price, low quality. If google wants android to be associated with high quality, why the hell did they release XOOM so early?
disclaimer: I run honeycomb on a high quality/low cost tablet thanks to XDA.
If there’s a hypocrite here then that’s the writer of this article.
Google doesn’t give a rat’s ass about openness. All they care about is making money, just like any other major corporation.
They’ve only used the notion of being “open” to position themselves as the Apple competitor.
They knew they couldn’t beat Apple on their terms so they had to position themselves on the opposite extreme.
You can talk all you want about licenses and what Google is legally obligated in doing and what not, however it’s a fact that behind closed doors they’re starting to impose their own rules on carriers and device makers and withholding source code (seems everyone was cheering along at Andy Rubins tweet a few months ago but shutting up now). And they’re doing this because they need to keep their platform viable for developers and consumers.
Andoid is not open. Google develops it on their own terms without any contribution from the community. They distribute prerelease builds to whomever they choose fit. They release source code whenever they see fit. And now they’re imposing rules on what carriers can alter on the OS when selling the devices.
PS: It’s funny how many Android and MS fanboy bloggers/writers are taking jabs at Gruber lately, hoping they’ll get a response (a desperate shot at getting numerous hits and the blogosphere noticing your existence).
Android is open.(using the command in rubin’s status still produce an Android image ver 2.3.3) Honeycomb has not been opensourced. Google’s apps and Market were never open.
Can we stop at that?
Oh, open as in ‘old source’ being open, not the current stuff. Sure, we can stop then – I assume Google will stop being a giant corp beating a “we’re not another big giant evil mega-corp” marketing drum too, right?
I think it makes sense for Google to control the platform more tightly – they are becoming Windows Mobile as it is. But then their marketing crap should get tossed. Open as in ‘you can contribute’ open? Uh, no. Open as in ‘we release it and everyone has access’ open? Uh, no again. I’d criticize Apple or Microsoft for not being ‘open’, but then again they never made that sort of claim part of their marketing.
Android 2.3.3 is the current stuff, for phones. Honeycomb is for tablets. My guess is the Honeycomb was more or less prematurely pushed out the door to some hardware venders to make them ship Android 3.0 devices before iPad2 was out. It could very well be that the code quality not yet is good enough for a general release in an uncontrolled environment.
Another reason for holding back could be to have some leverage against hardware venders that want to modify the platform in a way that makes it harder to integrate phones and tablets.
If we should believe Andy Rubin the code will get released when they have integrated the phone and tablet versions, i.e. in Ice Cream sandwich. In the long run this may not be a bad thing. I think we should wait and see what happens in the future before blaming Google too hard of not being in the FOSS spirit.
Yep. Marketing. That’s what “major corporations” do. Or any business for that matter.
It doesn’t matter how open Android is; only nerds, hippies, freetards and other people with vested interests care. The important thing is that the overall public understand the importance and percieve Google as being a champion of their “freedom”.
Except that Google is NOT a “champion of their ‘freedom'”; where ‘freedom’ means the ability to use a device any way that the user wants to use it. And, frankly, that’s the only definition that makes sense.
Again, it’s just marketing. It doesn’t need to make sense, it just needs to push the right buttons with the target demographic.
Exactly. Google wants control of more of their own ad delivery channel. That’s fine – they’re a big ad delivery company. But framing that as ‘freedom’ is a bit of a stretch.
Why oh why did it take me so long to discover this beautiful word? If only this word had been part of my vocabulary 10 years ago. I think this is what love feels like. I thank you Mr testman.
are you talking about Gruber or the fanbois? It’s hard to tell…
I don’t think the question should be whether this move by Google will mean that Android is less open; I think the real question is, does it really matter? Google withholding the source and (hopefully) putting the smackdown on the vendor bloatware means that (again, hopefully) the user experience will be more consistent from device to device, and there will be no more of this, “Oh, this widget won’t work on my phone because it has HTC’s NonSense on it’ horseshit.
Of course, I assume this means that there will be no more nightly builds of custom roms that people can install to find out which of the features on their phone won’t work on that particular build, but 98% of the population doesn’t give a rat’s ass. Anyway, you’ll still be able to tweak the hell out of it; it’ll be like a jailbroken iPhone/iPad out of the box…. on steroids
Perhaps Google has finally learned the lesson that Linux on the desktop never learned… having 900 different variants of your product is not going to have people lining up around the block on launch day
Edited 2011-04-06 00:04 UTC
* I mean, really, Gruber, Apple has withheld source code releases in the past quite often, and in fact, the code to the open source components underlying iOS are not made available at all, yet not a peep from you about that – despite the fact Apple regularly touts the open source underpinnings of its operating system. If there is one “hypocrite” here, it’s you.
It was a surprisingly good read despite recent much Apple trolling from the author.
However, what are those components underlying iOS that are not made available? Can you let me what they are?
If those components are not modified at all from Apple, they should not really need to provide themselves nor someone would care at all.
However if they are modified by them and if its GPL licensed, GPL crowds would not stay still already. If the components are made by Apple and opened to the masses, Apple could make it dual licensed so that they can keep their own bits for their OS closed. period.
Not true. If you distribute, you must comply with the GPL.
You’d have to be more specific in order to really make a point here. But, in general, if you modify a GPL program and distribute it, you cannot dual licence your changes in such a way as to not comply with the GPL. Your modifications must also fall under the GPL.
Although, I must admit, I am not aware of any recent delays in compliance with the GPL or LGPL by Apple. There were some such cases in the early days of Safari. It was derived from the LGPL based KHTML, and they distributed Safari without making the source immediately available.
I think you are incorrect here. They did make the code available, they just waited until they released the final version and then released the entire code at a time. Basically they adhered to the letter of the license, not the spirit.
Now, they have changed that, and all development for webkit happens in the open, which also allows independent developers and developers from other companies to contribute to the development and direction. As far as I am concerned, this is what open source is about, not just having access to the code, but being able to participate in the development.
In addition, this means that a user or a developer can download a nightly and see what changes and improvements have been made and not have to wait for the final release. For example this allows web designers to comment on the behavior of new CSS features and allows even non-developers to influence the behavior if it is not satisfactory. In the end, it is the designers who are going to be using these features, and so it is really good that they get to test it when it is developed and when there is still a chance to change it.
Looking back at the history, you are correct. They released the source at the same time as the first public beta.
I couldn’t find that while before I wrote my first post.
I thought there were other instances, but maybe not.
Specifically, without touching the UI stuff, the ARM port of XNU. There is i386 and PPC, but no ARM.
Current XNU source does come with ARM support. For reference, here’s the readme:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.37/README
I base my conclusion not on the things that are written in the README, but on the fact that there are no adequate pieces such as there are for i386, x86_64, ppc and ppc64.
Sample:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.37/libkern/i3…
http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.37/libkern/pp…
http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.37/libkern/ar… << Does not exist.
Also under the following directory there are no ARM labelled files.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.37/libkern/co…
It’s hard to believe that there is no need for ARM specific code in the whole kernel, but there is ppc, i386, x86_64 and ppc64 specific code.
And a grep over the sources gives embarrassingly little amount of results for ARM.
EDIT:
More to the point, some kernel crashes from iPod Touch show that there are actually those ARM pieces, but not opensource – /osfmk/arm/trap.c found in the report on the following topic is nowhere in the public sources.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2269543
Edited 2011-04-07 02:11 UTC
I think you have written a good article, but I may differ on some views.
Let me say I have no problem with proprietary software or controlling the brand identity. I do have only a few conditions though.
Google have already said the Honeycomb 3.0 build that is already deployed will not have it’s source released. The build that will be open source will be changed from that which is on the Motorola Xoom etc.. Yes whatever they haven’t changed will be open source, but the parts that weren’t up to scratch will never be open source. This is the same as Chrome in that Chrome is not open source, but Chromium is. It is impossible to take the source and verify it is the same as Chrome because of certain additions like branding and other stuff. You can do this with Firefox though. This is an important distinction that has real world consequences. So I respectfully disagree that currently “Android is still every bit as open today as it was a few months ago”. Coming from a multi-national personal information-mining corporation this is troubling because one of the reasons Google likes to tout that something is open source is to imply their isn’t anything nefarious hidden inside.
Even though Chrome is mostly Open Development (Crankshaft V8 engine and VP8 were code dumps), they fork projects without trying to work with upstream and this is problematic like Android’s NIH stack because even GPL projects can be taken ahold of by a more powerful entity. (If someone makes significant changes and gains momentum the upstream project (e.g. the project that was forked) can be left behind.
As to the degree of openess that can be claimed, an interesting addition is that neither of these projects do Open Planning.
The openess is further nullified by closed source changes by the manufacturers and carriers, because to the user, they have no guarantee of no lock-in, or lack of tracking mechanisms added by the manufacturers and carriers in addition to the ones Google puts in place already. “The vast majority of Android smartphones are encumbered by lockdown mechanisms that block installation of third-party firmware. Some mobile carriers even block installation of external software entirely, in stark contradiction of Google’s early promises.” Given that Google proclaimed that Android would not block external software, then to not restrict the removal of this freedom in the contract makes “open” just pure marketing.
I’m particularly disenchanted with Google’s actions is because they continually scream “open” and “open source” when they are not open as much as you would think. I think because Google puts so much emphasis on “open”, they should be doing development out in the open, otherwise don’t claim at the top of your lungs you are, because it’s just deceptive. Why I think Android in particular should be Open Development is that Google is exploiting the fact that it doesn’t
matter as much that they release the source code as a code dump because it makes the choice to use a community provided build an unreasonable choice, as it holds back development of a branch (resources can’t be spread out like in Open Development, particularly important for non-full time projects), making a significant time delay take away the choice for many people. This is behaving like a QPL application with “Choice of venue” clause.
“I believe that if you deem it necessary for your project to be developed behind closed doors, you should be able to” I agree with this (on the condition that there is no tracking mechanisms, otherwise if I’m going to pay for something like this I might as well use something open source with tracking mechanisms that is “free”). Just don’t claim you’re open, Open Source yes, but I think Open is just such a ambiguous word that can be abused by advertising, press releases and public statements that the community should prefer that it be reserved for a project with a significant degree of “openess” (I’m aware that itself isn’t exactly defined).
If I have to buy the product before I am allowed to inspect the code then it is not public, and this is one important facet of open source. (I’m not going to inspect it, but I’ll never buy an Android device anyway.)
I respect that Ryan Paul had the guts to write an article that showed Google is not as open as people like to claim. I say guts, because in the comments Google fanboys are upset, but as you read, you realise at least some of them have never even heard of Open Development, and do not understand Open Source does not mean Google is not in control or that you can even fork the project. It’s just ridiculous to complain whenever there is negative publicity about Google. I’m really fed up with how you cannot say anything factually correct that shows Google in a bad light. I know that people earn money through their websites through Google’s online advertising monopoly but a little impartially would be welcome (this is not directed at you Thom). The same exceptions are not granted to other businesses.
“Google has long exhibited a pattern of behavior in its Android dealings that reflects a disregard for openness and the third-party development community. It started even before the first Android release, when Google silently stopped making SDK updates available to the public for months and used nondisclosure agreements to gag the privileged few who were given access.” This in particularly isn’t very “open”.
Google’s stance on the CyangenMod case is disappointing, they want to tout Android as Open but can’t let modders, a very small community distribute it with the proprietary/closed source applications like Google Maps. Remember Google benefits from people using their bundled proprietary applications so they should have not taken the same bully boy behaviour they did with the Googol comic girl. I believe both Eric Schmidt and Andy Rubin said the nature of open was that carriers could modify it, even if it meant to the detriment of the platform, so if they are OK with that, why can’t they not take such a controlling stance on a community that helped Google improve performance among other things. Google should be grateful for the free development.
“by adding closed-source applications to Android, they can’t consider it truly open source” I won’t say that Android is not open source because of this, of course if you mean that on a vanilla build, everything that ships on a device is considered as Android, then yes it is only partially open source.
“restrict access to Google services such as the Android Market to devices that are properly licensed.” Ordinarily I’d be perfectly accepting of this, I’d even suggest something like this. But because Google touts “open” and nullifies (to a large extent) the point of Android being open source, in this case I disagree (this is idealistically, I’ve never assumed Google would allow this).
Android is not free, I believe partners need to pay to access the source tree. Secondly, the cost is your privacy (or lack thereof). Free as in freedom is largely irrelevant as well, without privacy, there is no freedom. With all due respect, it’s Free as in smokescreen.
I’m not an MS, Apple or GPL/BSD devotee so no ad hominem attack thank you. This isn’t directed at anyone in particular.
Edited 2011-04-06 03:12 UTC
>Google have already said the Honeycomb 3.0 build that is already deployed will not have it’s source released.
Did Google release the source for 3.0 to Motorola to deploy the Xoom? If yes, then they comply with GPL.
I’m pretty sure that the copy right for most parts of Android (except the Linux kernel) are owned by Google. As such, they are under no obligation to release the source. Upto 2.3 they have done it, but for 3.0 they have decided not to do it yet, and since they own the copyright, the license does not apply to them. It just applies to others who decided to use code that Google wrote.
Same way how QT is licensed under a GPL & a commercial license. You can’t take the QT’s GPL code and release it under a commercial license, but QT can do it because they own the code.
There’s more source code available for iOS 4.3 than there is for Android 3.0.
http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-43/
http://android.git.kernel.org/
He’s trying to bait Gruber/Apple users for hits and free publicity, something Dvorak and Enderle have been doing for ages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOHzHVF-4Mg
Not true. The whole kernel tree there. And specifically the Tegra2 kernel.
If I want Gruber to link to us, I shouldn’t be writing well-reasoned articles. Gruber usually link sto two kind of articles:
– those which are kissing his or Apple ass
– those which are so outrageous they can be ridiculed (ZOMG APPLE IS GOING BROKE TOMORROW LOLOLO!!1!)
This allows him to keep up the illusion that he is always right.
It’s sad people still talk about him.
He’s posting trash all the time, on purpose as it’s his job to mislead people.
Needless to say I’ve a very low opinion of such people
Osnews posts, even if not always fully correct are not even comparable.
Grow up, Thom.
two different questions to answer:
– legal: does Android 3 comply with GPL, Apache and other licences for each software pieces? [Yes]
– popular: is Android 3 (as a whole) open yet? [No]
As simple as that. For what it’s worth.
How can it possibly comply with the GPL when they say that the Honeycomb source won’t be available to “anyone”?? (I mean users of the binaries, I’m sure Motorola has access. Thinking further, couldn’t Motorola be pressured to provide the source code, as they are actually distributing it?)
I am guessing they make GPL licensed parts (like the Kernel) available in one way or another, meanwhile they keep their own additions closed.
Really, someone who has Xoom should request the sources from Motorola!? Are you seriously thinking they would get anything? When Google made it clear that they won’t give away the sources at least for a while?
You seem to be confusing the copyright holder (Google) for a licensee (Motorola). Google as copyright holder can release the source/binaries under whatever license they want. They release it to the public under GPL (for versions lower than 3.0) and they probably release it for Motorola and other big customers under a proprietary license. If you think that Motorola has to releas any source you are sadly mistaken.
The clear, plain to see in my oppinion, thing is that Android versions lower than 3.0 are FOSS, while Android 3.0 is not. At least not yet.
Edited 2011-04-06 07:43 UTC
Yes (explantion below).
Right: and that’s what they do with Android. Up to 2.3.3, Android was released as FLOSS under Apache2. Android 3.0 is not Free/Libre/Open Source.
However, Google is not the copyright holder of the Linux kernel. That part of Honeycomb is GPL’ed.
Therefore, if you get Android 3.0 from Motorola, you’re entitled to get its kernel’s source code if you request it (but only for the kernel -or any other GPL’ed component-, not for the whole system).
So you agree with me that Android 3.0 is not FOSS yet. That was the point of the article, not if Google is in compliance with the GPL components they use (which I’m sure they are). But all the GPL or other FOSS licensed components that make up Android do not make an Android by themselves. So, my conclusion (and yours) stands, and it’s pretty obvious.
Of course we agree on that: it’s a simple matter of fact.
Honeycomb is not FLOSS under any definition.
Free Software Definition? No, we lack freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Open Source definition? Nope, it fails criteria 2: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
Android creator Andy Rubin’s definition of Open? Neither.
Up to 2.3.3 Android was FLOSS, and hopefully future version will be too, once the phone and tablet versions merge.
Right now, Android 3.0 is proprietary software.
Isn’t the emulator also a binary? Would this mean that anyone who has downloaded the latest android sdk has the right to request 3.0 source?
Yes, you would get the GPL:ed parts of Android i.g. the kernel. I really doubt Google would fail to comply that would result in too much bad publisity.
However, if they want to mess with you, they could charge you some minor administrative fee for the trouble of giving it to you.
This means that the only people who have the right to access the Honeycomb source code (the part covered under the GPL) are those who have bought a Xoom.
It’s not like the GPL has the phrase “must be publicly documented and available to the public in source code form” or anything.
All members of the public probably includes at least a few people who haven’t bought a Xoom.
Edited 2011-04-06 09:10 UTC
Good editorial.
The problem with this entire discussion isn’t what Google is doing, I don’t honestly think most of us really care if it means that Android improves as a platform,.
At the heart of the issue is the difference in reaction from the communities.
Look at the number of gripes still being held against Apple for it’s treatment of OSS projects, despite the volume of contributions they have made and continue to make. CLANG, LLVM, WebKit, SprtouCore, Launchd, etc. Hell, it comes out that Apple is not going to ship a product that has not even been announced on a date that has only been speculated at with no official word on either the existence much less shipping date and Apple gets blasted in the press for ‘missing a ship target’.
Google acknowledges shipping something early, that was not ready for consumption and they are changing the rules on the fly and they get what amounts to a free pass, with much of the press?
That is what has so many people annoyed.
Look, Google did what they had to do, and the Xoom is suffering for it. HP appears to be taking the oposite tack and trying to get it right before they ship, God knows what RIM is doing. Microsoft is still trying to sell us on Tablets being a fad.
So right now, it is a 2 horse race and the jockeys are being playing under different rules where the trade press is concerned, and *that* is what bugs me,.
It’s not like Google fixing the fragmentation issues in Android isn’t the best thing for the platform, but giving a free pass to Google for such a significant, and sudden policy shift in the lead up to the regime change at Google just stinks.
This is not entirely true as it depends on the version of the GPL and the chosen option for fullfilling the source availability clause.
The Linux kernel is licenced unter GPL version 2 and if the Xoom did not ship with the kernel sources e.g. on a CD/DVD as part of the package, the written offer to ship the source code is valid for any third party (GPL v2, Section 3b).
The easiest way to comply with the GPL is really to just ship the source with the binary. In this case ones doesn’t have to bother to have it available as a download or on request.
This is, btw, a reason why excuses like “can’t have GPL in app stores because it would require app store to have source downloads” are just that: excuses.
The app store’s policy could just require that the app bundle contains the sources, thus complying to section 3a (GPLv2) or 6a (GPLv3).
The average consumer doesn’t care if a phone is “open” or not. It might benefit them directly if the openness spurs innovation, but in the US that’s not really the case because the carriers lock it down. In that particular case, Apple has an advantage because they dictate to the carriers what the build will be, instead of the carriers modding the ROMs and putting in ridiculous restrictions (like Verizon making Bing the only possible search engine).
Because the carriers can (and do) put in those restrictions, the openness of Android is mostly kept from the average consumer.
I think Google does this to enforce their rules on vendors. Yes it’s open, and you can do whatever with it, but until next release. Then you wait for the code while others, who are well behaved, profit from it. And maybe they also don’t want cheap chinese knock-off tablets with gingerbread flooding the market from the start (although – why not?:))
Delayed “openess” is a small cost for better user experience and less fragmented platform in the longer run.
Lost of weasel words from Google apologists.
Can anybody see any hypocrisy in this:
Vic Gundotra in his keynote at I/O last year:
quote:
If Google didn^aEURTMt act, it faced a draconian future where one man, one phone, one carrier were our choice. That^aEURTMs a future we don^aEURTMt want. [^aEUR|]
So if you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android.
Businessweek last week
quote:
From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google^aEURTMs most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google^aEURTMs Android group.
I guess all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than other
What a shameful performance
We all know now…Google Apologetics dictates that when Google is found to be wrong, you attack Apple. It’s clear that Google, who unabashedly and self-righteously, declared themselves the Open Source savior, is now playing favorites, as you said. And Reverend Thom of the Church of the Google Apologetics, starts pointing at Apple (whose operating systems are proprietary, always have been proprietary…but does support some open source projects) and falsely states that they claim the same things as Google. A clear misdirection…and very disingenuous. And his attack on Gruber (who clearly couldn’t care less about Thom) is just sad.
However, I am having fun seeing the Google apologists squirm and rationalize the rather dubious shenanigans going on at their beloved corporation.
Edited 2011-04-06 18:37 UTC
So let me get this straight – I actually clearly disagree with Google’s actions, and I also clearly explain why. Yet, I’m a Google apologist?
Lolwut?
Oh, man… Look what you did… I can’t believe I up voted one of your comments!
Your Apple fanboyism makes me want to puke sometimes and hence it baffles me that in the middle of all this drivel you actually made a point! A reasonably fact backed one while we’re at it!
Yes, Google has not been acting as they should with regards to this whole Honeycomb enchilada but I am still willing to sit back, give them the benefit of the doubt and wait to see whether they’re gonna to fix it or not.
Now excuse me while I walk to the toilet to wash my hands, will ya?
We need to understand the marketing strategies here.
Apple market itself as “simple” “perfect-design” “easy to use”.
When the media started to complain about iPhone 4 antenna problems and told it was a “bad design” problem, it was a direct attack to the Apple brand because they are known as the company that has “perfect-design” products. Apple and his fanbois made all the effort to deny any design problem, because acknowledging it will be harmful for the brand. (even that they indirectly acknowledge it by searching to hire more antenna specialist at that time)
Google is marketing Android as “open” as an advantage to iOS “perfect-design”.
So now you have an well-design, easy to use and “open” OS to compete with iOS. It is hard competitor for Apple. Fanbois strategy is trying to discredit Android at a marketing level (the ground they known for many years). So they are starting to attack and say that “open” is overrated. And that is better to have a constrained and controlled iOS than a full of potential malware installed on Android.
Android stills shows their “Openness” at the ecosystem level. You can not install on iOS software that is not controlled by Apple. If you are in a third world country you can not buy apps from the App Store, you can not buy music from the iTunes store (your credit card it is not accepted).
Android allows you to install apps not controller by Google. You can have local “Apps Store” that will be more customized for your geography. That is “Open” from another perspective. (not the open source one).
So, in a marketing level, Android keeps being more open than iOS.
(crap, my post does not make sense with the article anymore)
Edited 2011-04-07 03:18 UTC
From the non-marketing and more pragmatical perspective my comments are:
– Google, open source the Android 3.0 stinky code, otherwise you will loose reputation.
– Fanbois are under Steve Jobs reality distortion field and it is impossible to reason with them. There is no point on arguing with hypnotized people.
– Thom, keep bitch-slapping that fanbois.