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

Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

thinq.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#31

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

ajross wrote: post #29
pingswept wrote: post #27

"Although the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich software development kit has been released, the source code is not yet out." I believe this is called "closed source." When I go to http://source.android.com/ , the latest release is Android 2.3 ("Gingerbread"). Am I missing a repository somewhere, or is Google "happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it", as it's put…

The headline is off. The linked announcement by Dan Morril said the source will be released after the devices are. So it should be future tense. But neither is it closed source: there's been no release at all yet, so if you need a term, use "vaporware".

Given that they've demo-ed it at the launch of a handset and that there are videos of it running I think vaporware is both inaccurate and needlessly harsh.

It's an announcement of a future event. If we're calling this vaporware are you also referring to Windows 8 as vaporware?

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#32

Post by pingswept »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #28
pingswept wrote: post #27

"Although the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich software development kit has been released, the source code is not yet out." I believe this is called "closed source." When I go to http://source.android.com/ , the latest release is Android 2.3 ("Gingerbread"). Am I missing a repository somewhere, or is Google "happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it", as it's put…

There's a difference between "making shit up" and pre-announcing. It's not unreasonable for them to hold back the source code until the first phone implementing the phone (the Galaxy Nexus) is available next month.

I agree there's a difference.

"Pre-announcing" suggests that the announcement will be followed by code release. In the case of 3.0, I think the first devices shipped back in May-- that's about 5 months ago. With that history, this seems more like "making shit up" to me.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#33

Post by [deleted] »

funkah wrote: post #25
qF wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this[1] data Honeycomb is [1] http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve...

Why did they even bother, then? That info makes this whole thing less understandable to me, not more. Edit: Actually, that's beside the point. I think the reason they made Honeycomb is because they thought a lot of people would buy Android tablets, because a lot of people were buying iPads. But they were wrong about that. I'm just saying, if they did it this way one time, there's no guarantee they won't do it again.…

[deleted]

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#34

Post by pingswept »

ajross wrote: post #29
pingswept wrote: post #27

"Although the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich software development kit has been released, the source code is not yet out." I believe this is called "closed source." When I go to http://source.android.com/ , the latest release is Android 2.3 ("Gingerbread"). Am I missing a repository somewhere, or is Google "happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it", as it's put…

The headline is off. The linked announcement by Dan Morril said the source will be released after the devices are. So it should be future tense. But neither is it closed source: there's been no release at all yet, so if you need a term, use "vaporware".

I see your point about vaporware, but I think that term generally refers to software that will likely never ship. I don't think Google will fail to ship 4.0.

Right now, the source exists, and I can't get it. I think it's pretty straightforward to call that closed source.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#35

Post by joebadmo »

Android is Open Source in that Google dumps the source code into the open periodically. It's not developed in the open.

Honeycomb's source was and never will be open.

This is way farther on the 'open' side of the spectrum than any other major mobile OS.

Is this, along with Android's open app marketplace, ability to install arbitrary third party software, and installability on any compatible device enough to warrant Google's marketing as 'open'?

I say yes.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#36

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

pingswept wrote: post #32
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between "making shit up" and pre-announcing. It's not unreasonable for them to hold back the source code until the first phone implementing the phone (the Galaxy Nexus) is available next month.

I agree there's a difference. "Pre-announcing" suggests that the announcement will be followed by code release. In the case of 3.0, I think the first devices shipped back in May-- that's about 5 months ago. With that history, this seems more like "making shit up" to me.

75% of the versions of Android have been open and in all instances other than one when they've said so in advance and gave a reason.

The only instance where they've said that it would be open and wasn't (3.1) was a logical follow on from 3.0 not being opened - not ideal but hardly grounds to suggest that when they categorically state that they're opening it up and that someone has been working on doing that for six weeks they're "making shit up".

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#37

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

ajross wrote: post #30
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between "making shit up" and pre-announcing. It's not unreasonable for them to hold back the source code until the first phone implementing the phone (the Galaxy Nexus) is available next month.

It's not "unexpected" or "uncommon", maybe. I think it's entirely unreasonable for an entity calling itself an "open source project" to withhold code under development from the public. There's no project here. But it's still better than we got from Honeycomb (or Apple, or MS), so I guess beggars can't be choosers.

I agree. I'm not wild about the "open" model they adopt - the code is (generally) open but the project certainly isn't and they do seem to play around with it to suit their commercial needs.

But given that Amazon have gone and lifted the Android code base and reused it without any endorsement or sanction from Google and largely not to Google's benefit, Google deserve some kudos for continuing to outsource Android at all.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#38

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

martingordon wrote: post #7

Do we have a term to distinguish between the two different models of open source? The two models being the "development in public" model (Chrome, Firefox, Rails, etc) and the "release finished code" model (Android, most GPL components of closed source software, etc).

I liked the term Shared Source for what Google are doing, though I was informed that Microsoft have already coined that for the stuff where they make the code public for review but not use.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#40

Post by MatthewPhillips »

parfe wrote: post #2

Google's recalcitrance appears to stem from two issues: one is that Honeycomb is specifically designed for large-screen devices and Google is concerned that, if released, it would find its way onto unsuitable form factors; the other, hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. I'm not sure why Google caught so much slack for keeping 3.0 closed source. I…

That goes against the principle of open-source. The principle is that by releasing code to the public you will get contributions from others (an extra set of eyes) that will make the project overall better.

But to accept this principle to have to also accept that some people will take your code and use it in ways that you don't approve. The hope/belief is that the good will float to the top. If you don't accept this premise then you don't really have an open-source project.

I can't figure out why Android open sources its code, ever. They don't seem to care about contributions from the community, and they obviously don't want people using their code in ways they disapprove of. It seems that the major reason for open sourcing their code must be something else. What I keep coming back to is that it somehow protects them (in most cases) of patent violations.

I've asked this in the past: what is Andy Rubin's open-source credentials? What open-source projects has he been involved in during his long and successful career?

Post reply on HN