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

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#51

Post by pingswept »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #47
pingswept wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should be clear: I don't mean to accuse Dan Morril of making shit up. The guy is probably speaking honestly. But in the larger picture, Google has been calling Android open source from the beginning. They haven't released source for 3.0, 3.1, or 4.0. (Yes, the 4.0 devices haven't shipped yet, but if they're really shipping in a month, the code has been in QA for a while.) That's disingenuous, to me.

I agree that they were happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it but the reality is that the versions you list are running on an estimated 4 million devices (tablet sales to date) of the 550,000 being activated every day. Somewhere in the region of 98% of Android devices (all the phones currently available) are running an OSS OS. And if you don't mean to accuse…

Your first sentence is basically what I think is happening, so I'll soften the language to be less abrasive. I don't think it's a fundamentally different claim-- they're saying it's open source while not releasing the source. It's dishonest.

Your stat about the 98% of Android devices is somewhat convincing. 3.0 and 4.0 aren't a fork for tablets though, are they? Future phones will use 3.0 and/or 4.0, right?

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#52

Post by km3k »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #40
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…

> They don't seem to care about contributions from the community

Google accepts a lot of patches from the community. Many of the major custom ROMs regularly submit patches. Things aren't perfect at the moment since all this infrastructure was hosted at kernel.org and is still down, so I can't link you directly to examples of public patch submissions and code review, unfortunately. But I can tell you they used Gerrit for that code review.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#53

Post by azakai »

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).

> 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).

There is a spectrum here, not two distinct models of open source.

Projects like Python, Firefox, Linux (kernel), etc. are open source and developed in an open community manner. Decisions are made in the open, long-term plans are well-known, and anyone can participate.

Projects like Chromium are less open, some development is behind closed doors, the project is controlled by a single corporation, the decision making process is not transparent, etc.

Near the edge of the other side are projects like Android, which are basically developed in a closed way, then "dumped over the fence" when finished (which makes them open source at that stage).

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#55

Post by km3k »

pingswept wrote: post #51
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that they were happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it but the reality is that the versions you list are running on an estimated 4 million devices (tablet sales to date) of the 550,000 being activated every day. Somewhere in the region of 98% of Android devices (all the phones currently available) are running an OSS OS. And if you don't mean to accuse…

Your first sentence is basically what I think is happening, so I'll soften the language to be less abrasive. I don't think it's a fundamentally different claim-- they're saying it's open source while not releasing the source. It's dishonest. Your stat about the 98% of Android devices is somewhat convincing. 3.0 and 4.0 aren't a fork for tablets though, are they? Future phones will use 3.0 and/or 4.0, right?

> 3.0 and 4.0 aren't a fork for tablets though, are they?

3.0 was essentially a fork for tablets. 4.0 is where they merged that fork back so it works on both phones and tablets, which is why they will be releasing the source of 4.0.

This says to me that Google felt that the user experience on phones is so important to them that they're ok with a closed source fork for tablets as a way to keep people from running Android 3.x code on phones and having a poorer user experience.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#56

Post by magicalist »

zobzu wrote: post #48
durin42 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just isn't true. I know for a fact JBQ has reviewed patches (and gotten relevant engineers to review things) that have made it into AOSP. The Android team does pre-push code review using Gerrit, and they often lack the personnel to review every change that comes in. As a result, patches sometimes (perhaps often?) wither on the vine before anyone can code review them. Also: many potential contributors are scared…

to be precise, contributing means giving your copyright away to Google. It means all you're doing belongs to Google, not to the community, or yourself. Oddly it puts people off from contributing patches. Oddly! I'm all for freely contributing to projects, but I will never assign my copyright to a corporation. A not-for-profit at least, but corporation, come on.

If we're actually being precise, you grant them an irrevocable license to your code, which is not at all the same thing:

http://source.android.com/source/cla-individual.html

eg "Except for the license granted herein to the Project Leads and recipients of software distributed by the Project Leads, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions."

> I'm all for freely contributing to projects, but I will never assign my copyright to a corporation. A not-for-profit at least, but corporation, come on.

The Mozilla committer's agreement, for instance, isn't that different in practice. You agree to specific licenses for your contribution (various shades of copyleft, MPL, GPL and LGPL) -- which amounts to anyone using that code being granted an irrevocable license -- but you retain copyright.

http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/committers-agreemen...

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#57

Post by DannyBee »

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.

Two of the original open source projects, emacs and GCC, did this for many years. In fact, if you shared the source code of development versions, you were banned from the FTP server that contained it.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#58

Post by cube13 »

yardie wrote: post #42
cube13 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As for not releasing honeycomb, look at releasing the kludged code from their perspective. They probably didn't want phones released from HC that wasn't ready for phone use, thus giving them a bad name when awful "Android Honeycomb Phones" hit the market. Wasn't Honeycomb supposed to be a tablet-only OS? In which case, Google could have removed all cellular voice functionality, stated in the readme and release notes…

They could have done that but chances are a few of the less reputable OEMs would have ported code from Froyo or GB to get the dialer working again. The open nature of it means there is no restriction that could not be unrestricted. But in all honesty HC was a rush job (as was most of the hardware) to keep Android in the game against Apple. I'm really looking forward to it getting "there". With 2x the resources (CPU a…

>They could have done that but chances are a few of the less reputable OEMs would have ported code from Froyo or GB to get the dialer working again. The open nature of it means there is no restriction that could not be unrestricted.

Unfortunately, this is probably the biggest mistake that Google has made with Android. Google could have gone the route that the Mozilla foundation has with Firefox, where Mozilla does not allow modified Firefox source versions to use any of Mozilla's Firefox-related trademarks without their consent(http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html). If one does wish to use the Firefox source in an official way, Mozilla has a "Powered by Mozilla" mark that they grant out for people that use the source.

Google did not put such a policy in place with Android, which really limits their power with respect to "rogue" OEMs. Since they aren't charging for use of the OS, it's It has also led to the current issue that a lot of people have with pre-installed crapware or UIs.

Ideally, I think that Google should have created a "Powered by Android" mark that they could grant to anyone that follows certain restrictions, like full comparability with the Android App store, the ability to root the phone, multitouch, etc. That would help them to protect their brand, especially in this case, because it would allow Google to enforce any potential issues like trying to shoehorn a 7" tablet UI/OS onto a 3.5" phone. Also, like Firefox, it would not stop guys like Cyanogen, because they could still use some other public mark.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#59

Post by SoftwareMaven »

phuff wrote: post #17
xdissent wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got lambasted for not releasing Honeycomb because "open" is one of their largest marketing platforms and the reason many people use Android. I'm glad they're going to release ICS source at some point, but can anyone be sure they'll continue to publish code for future versions? That kind of uncertainty diminishes their claims of "open" greatly in my mind. Also, a tiny nit about the headline - it's not open source…

Fwiw, many is a very relative term there. Android phones are definitely mainstream. I'd say of all the people I know that have an android phone, less than 10% even know what "open source" means.

It is relative, but many people bought Android phones because their techie brother-in-law raved about it. He raved about it because it was "open".

I have little doubt this was a major cause for Android crossing the chasm, so it does seem a bit disingenuous to only be "kind of" open.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#60

Post by Tobu »

dman wrote: post #13

If the code is unfit for others to read why is it being shipped in production devices?

Because the industry norm for consumer gadgets is short product cycles, with the production of terrible quality code that doesn't see much maintenance after the release. Most users won't notice.

Even a "quality" product like the iPhone was shipped with everything running as root and a mess in the filesystem (and that's for a platform that has been maintained since).

Post reply on HN