Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by Tichy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Tichy·

Android 3.0 or 3.1 are not on phones, though.

View on HN

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com