Hacker News Reader

Fuschia uses a BSD style license whereas the Linux kernel is GPL. Google or hardware vendors can modify the Fuschia code without sharing the changes with the public, for better or worse.

Google, as the copyright owner, could do that, or let hardware vendors do so, even if it was GPL.

BSD-style means that anyone can do that, even Google's competitors, without any additional permission from Google.

Everyone said the same thing about Android.

...and Amazon went ahead and forked it, in addition to CyanogenMod, Paranoid, Copperhead, "HALFB4kedMod 0.9Beta2(No camera)"[1] and so on. Android's openness is not just empty words.

1. Until the developer changes phones and loses interest. Nevertheless, thank goodness for XDA.

And by now not even the caller app, or the phonebook app, or the calendar, or Homescreen, or settings, or search are open anymore.[1]

Everything now requires Google's proprietary services

Oh, and Google prevents OEMs from cooperating with Amazon.[2]

As result, Android is almost completely controlled by Google.

And you call that "open"?

    ________________________

[1] To disprove this, please find me the full current source code of the Google Dialer, Google Contacts, Android Nessages, Google Calendar, Pixel Launcher, and Google Search apps — all these used to be open source in Android 2.3.7, if you find me the full source code of their current versions, I'll take this point back.

[2] See the ongoing Antitrust case in the EU against Google

You can still go fully open; https://microg.org/ and https://f-droid.org/en/ I don't have Pay, and no cloud push notifications, and the GPS assist isn't quite as perfect, but the only real bugbare is no swyping keyboard.

Sure, but that's not the same. By that argument — the core of the OS is open, just everything on top isn't — you might as well call macOS open because Darwin is open.

Android is nowadays proprietary, sadly.

This is actually a very good analogy. There are even open reimplementations of core foundation and coaca, but no one would ever call OSX open.

Android was always "completely controlled by Google". It wasn't developed in the open - they would throw the code over the wall when it was ready. Does software have to be developed in the open for the result to be open? Answers to this vary depending on your perspective.

If you're going to dismiss "open-core" and corporate-controlled open projects out of hand, I have bad news to tell you Gitlab, Red Hat, VS Code and hundreds of other projects the rest of us non-purists are grateful for providing their source under licenses that allow for modifications or forking...

Yes, but in the past they actually threw code over the wall.

They stopped updating most system apps code, and never continued even providing the code.

Originally, everything was open source at least.

How many of the core devs don't work for Google? How much of the overall project direction is decided by people who have nothing to do with Google?

Saying "it's open, so they don't really control it" is like saying Linus doesn't have control of the Linux kernel.

Maybe google will figure out how to make an Android style play and hold this OS hostage by withholding their services.

> If anything, this will result in less power over the Linux kernel for Google. It seems like that’s something you’d appreciate.

Yes.

> How many of the core devs don't work for Google? How much of the overall project direction is decided by people who have nothing to do with Google?

This is why some developers are starting to hate open source. There's no technical excitement, it's all about community and governance and who has power and corporations and codes of conduct, etc... If not, you're going to fail. You get an army of experts scrutinizing your project and it's unexciting.

> My response to s2g’s reply below because HN is terrible for commenting:

Click on the comment’s link (the “x hours ago”) to reply.

It wasn’t that. It was rate limiting me... for some reason.