Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 20:35 UTC
Google It was inevitable, of course, and rightfully so: Google is having its big I/O conference, so we have to talk about the lack of Honeycomb's source code. While not violating any licenses, the lack of source code doesn't sit well with many - including myself - so it only makes sense people are asking Google about it. Andy Rubin confirmed we're never going to see Honeycomb's sources as a standalone release. He also explained what 'open' means for Android.
Permalink for comment 472743
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by vivainio
by bouhko on Thu 12th May 2011 01:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by vivainio"
Member since:

If you go back in history a bit, one of the main reason Stallmann started the whole copyleft stuff was because he was pissed because he wrote a piece of software, distributed it under a public domain license. A company then modified it and Stallmann asked them for their modifications, which they didn't want to disclose.

The point is, the roots of the Free Software movement are NOT community development. It's just that you have the four basic freedoms and that you can look at the code and do whatever the hell you want with it. This is basically a guarantee that you won't depend on a software vendor to support your software, you can do it yourself.

You should also read this interview[1] from Linus (on a french website, but interview is in english) where he says he's completely fine with Android and that forks are a big part of Open Source.

I mean, I think community development is nice, but we should stop the confusion between "community software" and "open source/free software". Some projects are both, some are not, but you DON'T have to have a community for your software to be open source. If you don't agree, start your own "Community software license" (I'm not ironic, that might be interesting).


Reply Parent Score: 1