

Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source - twapi
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/10/20/google-confirms-android-40-ics-open-source/

======
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.

~~~
guelo
> Honeycomb's source was and never will be open.

Honeycomb will be in the git repo since it is what ICS was developed from. The
question is if it will be specifically tagged.

------
martingordon
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).

~~~
dmaz
Cathedral and Bazaar works here

~~~
durin42
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."

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

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

------
parfe
_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
found these to be great reasons and instead of dealing with a bunch of
HoneyComb/Android SUCKS reviews when someone put honeycomb on a small screen
device google just weathered it out and released something with some quality.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
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?

~~~
km3k
> 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.

~~~
telcodud
AOSP source code is now back online: [http://groups.google.com/group/android-
building/msg/c73c14f9...](http://groups.google.com/group/android-
building/msg/c73c14f9b0dcd15a)

~~~
km3k
That's correct. I should have mentioned that. Do you know if the gerrit code
review website is back? I haven't been able to find a working URL for it.

~~~
telcodud
FTA: There are a few limitations to be aware of: \- Our priority has been
getting the main source code mirrors back online, so for the moment gitweb
source browsing and Gerrit Code Review are still unavailable.

------
zobzu
Something has to figure out that a product "IS" not open source AS LONG AS THE
SOURCE IS NOT RELEASED. So no, right now, ICS is NOT open-source.

It will be the day they release the source.

Being open-source is not a design attribute. It's a process.

------
pingswept
"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 later in this thread?

(Edited to be less inflammatory)

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
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.

~~~
ajross
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.

~~~
DannyBee
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.

~~~
ajross
That may be true (not sure abuot the banning thing, I've never heard that
story), but you're sort of missing the difference in spirit. Certainly the FSF
in its early days was eager and active in recruiting new developers, and
merging code from the community. Read all the early Gnus Bulletins for lots of
examples.

If you wanted to see RMS's emacs source, all you had to do was ask and promise
not to spread it around before he'd made a release. That policy may not have
been a good idea in hindsight, but it certainly wasn't because of Stallman's
desire to keep control over his "product".

Google, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be much in the habit of letting
people see their code simply because they want to contribute.

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

~~~
dabeeeenster
Because the quality of the source code and the quality of the resultant
binaries are two completely different things.

~~~
sovande
The source code is used to produce the "resultant binaries" so unless you have
a very strange definition of "quality" the OP has a very valid question.

~~~
zmmmmm
> a very strange definition of "quality"

Is it strange that, say, comments are stripped out of a binary? Or that the
file names of the source files are not in there? These things are examples of
aspects of quality that have no impact on the binary but make a big difference
to the quality of the source.

------
radiant1
Sounds to me like a complete open sourced code is going to come to a decision
when Google acquires Mototola Mobility... Will that be then end or a tweaked
version for external developers?

------
playhard
<http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-50/>

~~~
X-Istence
That is the source code for the open source stuff that Apple uses in their
product, it is not the full OS itself.

