Comment by enjo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by enjo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The 3.0 thing is a really interesting case. Android's open source model is that the code is primarily written and managed by Google, and then released all at once "when it's ready". So the only pushes are version releases and related bug-fixes.

It was pretty clear that Google never considered Honeycomb to be "complete". It was pushed out in a hurry to deal with the fact that manufacturers were pushing out terrible experiences on tablets using older Android versions. Honeycomb is merely a stop-gap to the next version (the upcoming ice-cream sandwich).

Google has been resistant to release the source precisely because I think they want to control (as much as possible) the proliferation of that code into devices that it can manage the bug fixing and release constraints on. That's why basically Google partners are the only ones with access to Honeycomb.

If the new version is released and the source code isn't, then I think RMS has a point. Ice cream sandwich better be "complete" and see a commiserate source-code push to go along with it. If not, Android has lost it's open source credibility. I think it is too early to make that call, however.

*disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge or any way to verify that my speculation is accurate:)

RMS has a singular killer point, which is that the source code for neither 3.0 nor 3.1 has been released. Google seems to be trying to straddle the fence here, maintaining the appearances of OSS while not actually providing a development trunk. Google may claim openness in the face of this, but open without source is closed. You can't claim to be FOSS while only releasing bins.

Android 3.0 or 3.1 are not on phones, though.

They could have been, though, if the source code had been released. :)

And I could have been a millionaire.

I can't say anything about that but I would bet my money on gnaffle's point.

It's very difficult to not have the opportunity to become a millionaire. For example I could have bought a lottery ticket and won the lottery. But I didn't. Likewise, Google hasn't published the Honeycomb source yet.

Also, it is strictly logic, you can follow everything from a false statement (false => anything). So, if Google had released the source for Honeycomb I could have been a millionaire is a strictly true statement.

What point are you trying to prove?

I think he's trying to prove he doesn't understand logic. You can prove anything from contradictory true statements not from false ones.

Contradictory true statements? Is that some kind of quantum logic? Maybe I am too old fashioned for that, I admit defeat.

That the discussion is complete BS.

I think you'll agree that it's much more likely that we'd had Android 3.0 on phones if they released the source code, than that you'd become a millionaire if you bought a lottery ticket. After all, people have done that to previous open source Android releases, I can even install the latest Android release on my iPhone.

Is software freedom defined differently on phones vs tablets?

Why does Android 3.x not being for phones make any difference at all to this conversation?

Because the title is "Android phones...", and also the majority of Android devices being sold are phones. You definitely have the option to get a non-Honeycomb Android phone right now.

Afaik Honeycomb was never meant for phones, either.

Okay, that may be but it has no impact on the "freeness" of Android 3.x.

The whole point of software being open is that you aren't left at the mercy of a corporation. Honeycomb is widely considered to be ait lacklastre (as you mention, it was pushed out in a hurry). Wouldn't it have been nice if that code had been truly open-sourced so that other companies and individual hackers could have scratched their various itches, getting the software up to speed faster? Instead of that, Google has sat on the source so that they can maintain control. 'Control' is antithetical to 'open'. I can see why Google want control, and I think those arguments are valid, but they need to stop claiming that the software is open. It is tangibly not open, and the situation only seems to be getting worse as time goes by.

The timing of this opinion piece - just after Google annouces that Ice Cream Sandwich will ship on October or November - may be significant. Could it be that it's mainly intended to send a message to Google - a warning shot to encourage them to think twice about holding back the ICS source? Certainly other FSF people are ... actively managing the Google relationship http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL7BaJFotnU , so I think it's quite possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com