Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#21

Post by Schmidt »

mycroftiv wrote: post #19
patrickaljord wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. No, even stallman approves of selling source code. Free software and open source have never been about price, it's about being able to get the source: > Commercial software is software being developed by a business which aims to make money from the use of the software. “Commercial” and “prop…

You are misconstruing my statements and ignoring the context. I am well aware that you can sell free software for money. However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here, and the general issue of charging money for software is not relevant. If you are linking and quoting from gnu, y…

But, Android (except for the kernel) isn't free software, it's mainly Apache and BSD licensed, neither of these licenses requires source to distributed for compliance.

Google is doing something bad, but it is not against the license.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#22

Post by beej71 »

bonch wrote: post #7
beej71 wrote: post #4

I guess I fail to see what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that Google is going to release the source code when it's "done", and that this is going to be some time in the relatively near future. Terms of open-source licenses have been adhered to. It sounds like they probably incurred some code debt rushing this out, and they want to clean it up before people start running with it. They themselves have said it d…

If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes. In other words, if you're going to position yourself as a champion for openness, expect to get called out…

> If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes.

IMHO, for a for-profit company, they're doing a really great job of keeping the source open, especially when compared to their competition. And remember how open they are required to be, which is "not at all". They could stop releasing source tomorrow, and, short of feeling morally superior, there is nothing anyone could do about it.

Is Google open by RMS's standards? If we just jump there, we can settle the terminology issue on the spot. No, they are not open, so now we can just work with what we have, which is "some open source under different licenses, and a lot of closed source".

But if someone doesn't like the restrictions on Android, they do have the option to fork it into a new OS. That's the open source deal, and Rubin spelled out the details in a tweet that a great many people made fun of at the time, but turned out to accurately describe their stance. Use the kernel source under the GPL's terms; use the trademark and store and non-GPL'd source under Google's terms.

When Justice gets involved, there are problems, for sure. But saying, "Hey, you can't use our trademark while pimping our main competitor's product, and if you do pimp our main competitor's product, don't expect us to be in a rush to show you our in-progress code" doesn't strike me as particularly horrific behavior. But that's just my opinion.

The big question is: would Android be a coherent platform without Google's restrictions? And if not, would Google even work on it?

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#23

Post by Locke1689 »

Schmidt wrote: post #21
mycroftiv wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misconstruing my statements and ignoring the context. I am well aware that you can sell free software for money. However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here, and the general issue of charging money for software is not relevant. If you are linking and quoting from gnu, y…

But, Android (except for the kernel) isn't free software, it's mainly Apache and BSD licensed, neither of these licenses requires source to distributed for compliance. Google is doing something bad, but it is not against the license.

He never said that it was illegal, just that it's wrong (while continuing to claim that Android is "open").

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#24

Post by Locke1689 »

beej71 wrote: post #22
bonch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes. In other words, if you're going to position yourself as a champion for openness, expect to get called out…

> If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes. IMHO, for a for-profit company, they're doing a really great job of keeping the source open, especially…

IMHO, for a for-profit company, they're doing a really great job of keeping the source open, especially when compared to their competition. And remember how open they are required to be, which is "not at all". They could stop releasing source tomorrow, and, short of feeling morally superior, there is nothing anyone could do about it.

I don't think the issue is whether or not they keep the source open, but whether or not their marketing is dishonest or hypocritical. I, for one, don't care that the iPhone has a completely closed ecosystem. If, however, Apple came out and said that their platform was free and open I'd be pretty annoyed.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#25

Post by ZeroGravitas »

mycroftiv wrote: post #13
patrickaljord wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there have been some legitimate gripes about Android's openness lately (like manufacturer favoritism) Android has always done that, it did it with the G1, nexus1, nexus S and now xoom. In some case it took them a month to release the source, other cases two months. In this case it will take a bit more (probably 4), so what? Big deal, Android is Apache license, this is completely fair game and as for manufac…

I always thought "open source" meant that I, the user, got access to the source code, and I was able to make changes and share them. I don't like seeing the meaning of open source progressively reduced to nothing. We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. It's not OK to use openness just as a marketing term and claim that a product be…

You are completely wrong about what "open source" means then. "Free Software" was designed to guarantee that you, the user, always got access to the source code, and was able to make changes and share them.

"Open Source" was specifically intended to sell a similar idea to corporations, and less idealistic programmers, mostly by dropping that key requirement. I'm surprised you've not noticed the last 20 years of GPL vs. BSD flame wars which should have made this obvious.

Google went out of their way to drop "free software" from the top of their stack in Android, ironically, because the manufacturers and carriers wouldn't play ball without it. At this point, the Businessweek story (well, the few bits that haven't been entirely refuted as false) sounds similar to record labels that demanded Apple add DRM to their music, then wondered why Apple suddenly had such great lock-in power over the market.

Except... nothing about even GPL'd Free Software compels you to release the source until after you ship to consumers. Even then you could add a few months delay by forcing people to buy the product then write you a letter then post it in the least helpful form you think you could get away with. Absolutely nothing would prevent you from signing corporate agreements and giving sneak peeks to your favored manufacturing partners. Basically, if you're writing the code, you have power. You have the power to write what you want, mostly under the licence you want, with whatever priorities you have. This applies as much to a Linux dev who decides to quit and become a monk as it does to Ubuntu ditching Gnome 3 to try their Unity stuff. It might suit you if they did something else, but people making petulant demands on developers is only commonly associated with open source, not actually part of the definition.

What's weird is that I thought I was fairly extreme on the "Free Software" side of things by most standards, and especially HN standards. However, it appears if you dare to use the word "open" in your advertising (and to be frank, I thought they were talking about smartphone stuff, like being able to install software of your choice) the tech hivemind will crucify you if you're not more extreme than RMS, someone who wouldn't use the phrase "open source" never mind the more wishy-washy "open" which basically could mean anything. Bit of strange double-standard there which I think basically reflects Google offering too much competition for Apple.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#26

Post by patrickaljord »

mycroftiv wrote: post #19
patrickaljord wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. No, even stallman approves of selling source code. Free software and open source have never been about price, it's about being able to get the source: > Commercial software is software being developed by a business which aims to make money from the use of the software. “Commercial” and “prop…

You are misconstruing my statements and ignoring the context. I am well aware that you can sell free software for money. However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here, and the general issue of charging money for software is not relevant. If you are linking and quoting from gnu, y…

Even Stallman said in several interviews that it was ok to make money that way, release a free/open version of your software and charge for the latest version by making it proprietary but just for a few months/years before releasing it as free/open too (I'll let you google the interviews). So I take it you're either more extreme than stallman or you're just being disingenuous to make a point against google, but if you're just more extreme than stallman, do you use gnewsense or something on your pc? Thought so.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#27

Post by mycroftiv »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #25
mycroftiv wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought "open source" meant that I, the user, got access to the source code, and I was able to make changes and share them. I don't like seeing the meaning of open source progressively reduced to nothing. We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. It's not OK to use openness just as a marketing term and claim that a product be…

You are completely wrong about what "open source" means then. "Free Software" was designed to guarantee that you, the user, always got access to the source code, and was able to make changes and share them. "Open Source" was specifically intended to sell a similar idea to corporations, and less idealistic programmers, mostly by dropping that key requirement. I'm surprised you've not noticed the last 20 years of GPL v…

I cannot believe you accuse me of being "completely wrong" about what open source means. I would suggest you go to http://www.opensource.org/osd.html and read the open source definition. Your claim that "open source" drops the requirement of user access to source code and freedom to redistribute is false. Now look at the official android website at http://www.android.com/about/ and notice the quote "Android is open source". Honeycomb does not currently meet the definition.

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#28

Post by ZeroGravitas »

mycroftiv wrote: post #27
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely wrong about what "open source" means then. "Free Software" was designed to guarantee that you, the user, always got access to the source code, and was able to make changes and share them. "Open Source" was specifically intended to sell a similar idea to corporations, and less idealistic programmers, mostly by dropping that key requirement. I'm surprised you've not noticed the last 20 years of GPL v…

I cannot believe you accuse me of being "completely wrong" about what open source means. I would suggest you go to http://www.opensource.org/osd.html and read the open source definition. Your claim that "open source" drops the requirement of user access to source code and freedom to redistribute is false. Now look at the official android website at http://www.android.com/about/ and notice the quote "Android is open s…

The post I replied to which said "I, the user" was ambiguous, though I think I caught your meaning so I'll just quote your other post:

"However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here [...] you are surely aware that free software is about the user of the software being able to access the source code, modify it, and redistribute it. None of these freedoms (which are also part of the open source definition) are currently given to purchasers of Honeycomb tablets."

I think it's clear here that your ignoring the key difference between GPL and Apache software like Android. If Android was GPL (and written at least partly by someone other than Google) then Motorola would need to release the source alongside any product containing it including any changes or improvements they made, as they are required to do for the Linux portion.

But Android isn't GPL, so they don't have to release the code they use. Google have released the code at roughly that time in the past, and it's that release, not the timing, which makes Android in general "Open Source". They say they'll do so with Honeycomb once they've finished the phone parts, and at that point Honeycomb will be Open Source too.

Feel free to say that the diff between Froyo and Honeycomb isn't Open Source until they release it. That's technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it is just plain wrong to bring the timing of the Xoom launch into things, or complain that Android as a whole suddenly stops being open source because more recent changes haven't been published yet.

Neither of those issues are covered by the term Open Source. You might have better luck comparing against a benchmark for open governance as proposed by Simon Phipps, but any issues for Android under those rubrics have been there all along:

http://opensource.com/life/11/2/open-rule-governance-benchma...

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#29

Post by mycroftiv »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #28
mycroftiv wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot believe you accuse me of being "completely wrong" about what open source means. I would suggest you go to http://www.opensource.org/osd.html and read the open source definition. Your claim that "open source" drops the requirement of user access to source code and freedom to redistribute is false. Now look at the official android website at http://www.android.com/about/ and notice the quote "Android is open s…

The post I replied to which said "I, the user" was ambiguous, though I think I caught your meaning so I'll just quote your other post: "However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here [...] you are surely aware that free software is about the user of the software being able to acce…

I know perfectly well that Android is not under the GPL, and nowhere in my posts have I implied that it is, and I have also not implied that Google is under any legal obligations whatsoever. The article which this entire discussion is based on is simply about whether or not Google is actually following through on their previous statements about Android, and about the fact that, as you just admitted, Honeycomb is not currently open source. I don't understand the distinctions you are trying to draw involving "the timing of the Xoom launch" because that is the essence of the issue: Honeycomb based devices are being sold without the source code being made available to the user, and Google states they are doing this on purpose and the situation will remain that way for some time. This is not compatible with the term "open source". The statement "Android is open source" is not the same as the statement "Older versions of Android are open source, but the most recent version is not."

Re: Android chief Rubin's response to Android critics misses the point

#30

Post by [deleted] »

Locke1689 wrote: post #24
beej71 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes. IMHO, for a for-profit company, they're doing a really great job of keeping the source open, especially…

IMHO, for a for-profit company, they're doing a really great job of keeping the source open, especially when compared to their competition. And remember how open they are required to be, which is "not at all". They could stop releasing source tomorrow, and, short of feeling morally superior, there is nothing anyone could do about it. I don't think the issue is whether or not they keep the source open, but whether or…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN