Linked by David Adams on Thu 31st Mar 2011 15:42 UTC
Google Playtime is over in Android Land. Over the last couple of months Google has reached out to the major carriers and device makers backing its mobile operating system with a message: There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group.
Thread beginning with comment 468559
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by tuzor on Thu 31st Mar 2011 17:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
tuzor
Member since:
2007-08-07

A good move - as long as Google keeps releasing the source on time.

Like how they've released Honeycomb on time?
Face it, Android is converging more towards iOS and the Apple Appstore.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Nonsense. *Assuming* they continue releasing the source, there is NOTHING non-open about ANY of this WHATSOEVER. Stop parroting idiots like Gruber who think even H264 is open.

Is Haiku closed because you're not allowed to use their trademarks if you deviate from their code? Is Red Hat closed because they demand the same thing? If not, then why is Android suddenly closed? As long as the code is released (vital), ANYONE can make a device running Android. You just can't use Google's trademarks and services, and that's perfectly understandable. Red Hat and Haiku do the exact thing, and nobody thinks they're closed either.

Edited 2011-03-31 17:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Same deal with firefox.
Some linux distros called it "iceweasel" because mozilla hadn't approved the source code modifications.

The code for firefox is still open, but the trademark is not.

Google are within their rights to use the trademark as they see fit, however they also risk fragmentation, which might be bad for end users.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by tuzor on Thu 31st Mar 2011 18:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
tuzor Member since:
2007-08-07

Nonsense. *Assuming* they continue releasing the source, there is NOTHING non-open about ANY of this WHATSOEVER. Stop parroting idiots like Gruber who think even H264 is open.


Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions.


Open like a book...
....as long as it favours them.

Reply Parent Score: 0

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

Nonsense. *Assuming* they continue releasing the source, there is NOTHING non-open about ANY of this WHATSOEVER. Stop parroting idiots like Gruber who think even H264 is open.


H264 is currently at least as open as Honeycomb. Do with that as you will.

Is Haiku closed because you're not allowed to use their trademarks if you deviate from their code? Is Red Hat closed because they demand the same thing?


Haiku and Redhat develop all of their code behind closed doors, without even read access to the source code repositories? Haiku and Redhat can and will delay the release of the source code to new versions of their products as long as it benefits them and their close partners?

If not, then why is Android suddenly closed?


http://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429 <-- That's why

As long as the code is released (vital), ANYONE can make a device running Android. You just can't use Google's trademarks and services, and that's perfectly understandable. Red Hat and Haiku do the exact thing, and nobody thinks they're closed either.


Since the code isn't released are you ready to jump on board the sanity train and admit that Android is closed or do you prefer to continue along with the failparade?

Android, the OS of "Soon"

"Soon" the UI will be better.
"Soon" it will have good tablet support.
"Soon" it will be open source.

Hopefully "Soon" people realize that Google isn't working in their best interest and stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Either that or we'd better all learn the new definition of open source, it's open source as long as the code is released ... someday.

Reply Parent Score: 1

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

Nonsense. *Assuming* they continue releasing the source, there is NOTHING non-open about ANY of this WHATSOEVER.


Really?

open |ˈəʊp(ə)n|:
...
- offered without restriction
- with no restrictions on those allowed to participate
...
- unguarded
...

...Google has reached out to the major carriers and device makers backing its mobile operating system with a message: There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview.


So it obviously depends on your interpretation of the meaning of open...

From the open-source definition:

3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works...
...
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
...The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.


And therein lies the problem here. Google WANTS the Android name out there, so they want EVERYONE to use it AND call it Android, but they want to have total control over what's done with it. Sure it might squeeze into the open-source definition, but there is absolutely no way it's open, in reality it's as closed and restrictive as the App Store that it's supporters throw up about all the time, with one person determining what everyone, even major corporations, can change or add or remove.

Google have sucked so many in to believing that they can take this thing and make it their own through customisations, and now that it's shown that doesn't work - and now that they have all these "partners" who've committed significant financial resources - they're changing their tune.

But this is Google, so really, no surprise here. They've done it before, an they'll do it again...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

This is the way it should be, IMHO.

Start as open as possible, place restrictions only on things that become problematic. Develop those restrictions to be as targeted as possible at eliminating behaviour harmful to the community.

Reply Parent Score: 5