11–20 of 53 posts
> In a separate case being heard in Munich, the court backed Apple's claim that Motorola had infringed its patent on what happened when users scrolled to the end of a page, document or list - a technology known as "overscroll bounce" or "rubber banding". That is also what the Chrome browser does..
This is seriously good news. I want open source to eventually win the war.
Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project compare it to Android. Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term, not in it's original meaning ... (or at least in how I understand open source)
Why? Because it's the only way to ensure a cohesive "ecosystem" that helps not only Google and their Android users, but also the manufacturers themselves in the long run. After all, if everyone had their own little fork of Android, and there wouldn't be an "ecosystem" anymore, that wouldn't benefit them at all, as these days it's all about "platform wars", and splitting one big platform into 10 different ones would actually hurt the manufacturers, not help them.
This is why I think Google needs to "close" Android even more i.e. standardize it a lot more, and even demand from manufacturers to release their drivers. It would be awesome if they told them to release open source drivers, but even closed source ones would be useful, because if everyone did this, Android could actually (eventually) work like Windows.
You would be able to install "Android" on any 2-3 year old smartphone or tablet. But that's only if the manufacturers would be forced to release those drivers and maintain the support for that amount of time. And that's only possible if the Android ecosystem becomes a little tigher/more closed, or "less open" (as in manufacturers can't do whatever they want, and they must obey a set of rules for the well being of the ecosystem).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project compare it to Android. Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term, not in it's original meaning ... (or at least in how I understand open source)
I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is…
This completely breaks the OSS community and contribution model.
Back in 2002, it was possible to contribute code to the current in-development version of Mac OS X. Now it's not, and iOS-specific OS code isn't provided at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project compare it to Android. Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term, not in it's original meaning ... (or at least in how I understand open source)
I think you mean "not very open", as in not community built, or some other type of extreme openness like that (open close is a scale, it's not black or white). But I'd argue that while Android should remain open source (you can use the source once it's ready), it should be even more "closed", in the sense that Google needs to have a lot more control over what the manufacturers/their partners can do with Android. Why?…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project compare it to Android. Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term, not in it's original meaning ... (or at least in how I understand open source)
I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is…
Here's one good solution, call the open Android as Androidium(on the lines of Chrome vs. Chromium).
Very good article on the openness of Android and to implement the above proposal.
http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-ho...
>Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is released and generally pretty soon after phones start shipping (honeycomb was a different story and Google's statements on the matter have been proven to be true with the new combined tablet and phone releases).
The problem came to fore when Acer got threatened with being cut off early access etc. when they wanted to launch other phones with Alibaba OS (Aliyun) on them. It's sort of a Android fork, but that's legal, but still Acer had to fold under the pressure or force getting cut off from their mobile business. Early access is much more important to OEMs than you make it seem to be and being able to fork is the core tenet of open source.
>Look, if android wasn't open source, projets like this would be a lot less successful: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/
You know what, barely anyone would use CM if they couldn't get access to the Play Store and Google Apps like Map. So they download it illegally from other sources. CM used to provide them but got a warning from Google. So right now they wink-wink-nudge-nudge towards the Play Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project compare it to Android. Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term, not in it's original meaning ... (or at least in how I understand open source)
Really? The last time I checked I was able to download the source code and do something with it on my own. Could you please justify your statement?
1. You can download part of the source (part is closed).
2. The source you can download and compile does not run on any phone (without some binaries).
3. Can you please send me the svn link to the newest pre-release version of Android (newer then Jelly Bean)?
So as a recap you can download part of the OS as source code. That's something you can also do for iOS. Apple gives you part s to download (to comply with licenses). Admitted Android is way more open than iOS.
Yet, to call it open-source discredits any real open source projects like Debian.
Just because you get some source dump from Doom e.g., after it's been developed, does not make it open source, at least not in my definition. Doom was still a closed source project, as Android is. You just get some source dumps once in a while.
Downvote me as much as you want ;)
Edit: fixed a typo
This is seriously good news. I want open source to eventually win the war.
Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project compare it to Android. Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term, not in it's original meaning ... (or at least in how I understand open source)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is…
Sigh, this whole Android is open or not argument is degenerating into the kind of arguments over 'Copyright infringement vs. Stealing'. Here's one good solution, call the open Android as Androidium(on the lines of Chrome vs. Chromium). Very good article on the openness of Android and to implement the above proposal. http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-ho... >Some like to claim that since Google…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, Android is not really open source :( Edit: If you think this statement is not true, please look at Debian or any other REAL open source project compare it to Android. Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term, not in it's original meaning ... (or at least in how I understand open source)
I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is…
The point at which Apple's culture significantly shifted away from open source was the point at which they hid all their source code until after the OS was released. This completely breaks the OSS community and contribution model. Back in 2002, it was possible to contribute code to the current in-development version of Mac OS X. Now it's not, and iOS-specific OS code isn't provided at all.