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

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#61

Post by X-Istence »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #37
ajross wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wait, what now?

If you release a project as open source having someone come along, repurpose it and use it is what you are hoping for. The entire idea is for people to use that source code that is now public to build new projects. You don't open source a project for the recognition. Why should it have to be sanctioned by Google? Why should it be endorsed by Google?

I can go out and download FreeBSD, strip all of the FreeBSD marks, and brand it bertBSD and I can do whatever the hell I want with it (following the license it is under). I don't need endorsement nor sanction from the FreeBSD foundation!

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#62

Post by X-Istence »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #31
ajross wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There were videos of Duke Nukem Forever running before it was released, and until its release it was still considered vaporware.

To me it sounds like an accurate term to use. As for Windows 8, I am happily running the alpha they made available so no, Windows 8 is not vaporware.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#65

Post by gergles »

cube13 wrote: post #58
yardie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

They do have that, it's "with Google". Android phones that follow Google's platform guidelines can put a "with Google" logo on the device, otherwise they cannot.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#66

Post by nknight »

elwin wrote: post #50
durin42 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite sure. Chromium (the open-source end of Chrome) is very much a cathedral in the sense of product direction, but is developed in the open. I can't come up with something that has the opposite pairing though (it'd be kind of strange). I'm all in favor of some pithy term for "source released under an open license but not developed in full view of the public."

How about "write-closed" vs. "write-open"? Or more simply, "read-only open source".

Fork-only might be more appropriate, since you're quite free to write to your copy.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#67

Post by phuff »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #59
phuff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The kind of open that they do is definitely less good than I would have hoped (I would love to be able to submit patches for the bugs I regularly encounter on my N1, say).

But trust me, of all the people I know who have android phones here in "Middle America" (off the top of my head without thinking too hard let's say more than 10), none of them bought them because of a techie brother in law raved about it being so cool because it was open. They all bought them because they wanted a smart phone and it was the one they were sold by the telco marketing. Period. (Okay, I'm up to more than twenty coming to mind just while thinking at the same time as typing, and still, none of them bought them because of the openness at all).

So yeah. While it's really marketing-speak to say that android is open in the sense that we all traditionally think of it, to google (and much more importantly to all the telco sales people) it means exactly squat as a selling point.

Which is why only people on HN (and Richard Stallman) get upset about it :)

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#68

Post by wmf »

gergles wrote: post #65
cube13 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 no…

They do have that, it's "with Google". Android phones that follow Google's platform guidelines can put a "with Google" logo on the device, otherwise they cannot.

The problem is that the marketing is all around "Android", but the enforcement is around "with Google". So vendors that ship garbage can still ride Android's marketing coattails (and dirty them).

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#69

Post by durin42 »

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.

There's a HUGE difference between copyright assignment (required by FSF!) and a license agreement (Google, Apache, Mozilla, many others). The former means you are giving away ownership to your IP, which is what you describe. The latter only means that the project can relicense or similar (which is very important if there's a bug in a license, for example). You retain copyright to any contributions made under a CLA.

It's a big difference. I don't see anything wrong with CLAs, and there are (according to some more versed in IP than I) some really good reasons to never accept patches without CLAs, especially when you're a potential high-profile lawsuit target.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#70

Post by ajross »

X-Istence wrote: post #61
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wait, what now? If you release a project as open source having someone come along, repurpose it and use it is what you are hoping for. The entire idea is for people to use that source code that is now public to build new projects. You don't open source a project for the recognition. Why should it have to be sanctioned by Google? Why should it be endorsed by Google? I can go out and download FreeBSD, strip all of the…

Well, to be fair: there are lots of reasons for releasing and using free software. Google's (as opposed to Android's) interests aren't necessarily served by someone else rebranding it. And a project generally is hurt by a fork. Having Amazon's even more walled-off fork of Android exist does nothing to help users of smartphones.

But your broad point is exactly right: we're all better served by working together on software instead of racing for parochial advantage by building on top of it without contributing to the whole. Open Source has lots of big advantages, but to do it "right", there are costs to be borne as well. The Linux community has on the whole found a pretty good balance between these concerns. The Android community has had some pretty bad missteps.

Post reply on HN