Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Apr 2011 22:48 UTC
Google Is Android still open now that Google has postponed the source code release of Honeycomb, version 3.0 of the mobile operating system? I've been reading a whole boatload of articles and blog posts on the web claiming Android is no longer open, but it seems like very few people seem to actually understand what 'open' really means when it comes to the GPL and the Apache license. Here's a short primer.
Thread beginning with comment 469271
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Oh, come on!
by acid_head on Wed 6th Apr 2011 08:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh, come on!"
acid_head
Member since:
2007-05-23

So you agree with me that Android 3.0 is not FOSS yet. That was the point of the article, not if Google is in compliance with the GPL components they use (which I'm sure they are). But all the GPL or other FOSS licensed components that make up Android do not make an Android by themselves. So, my conclusion (and yours) stands, and it's pretty obvious.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Oh, come on!
by quique on Wed 6th Apr 2011 15:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Oh, come on!"
quique Member since:
2005-07-07

So you agree with me that Android 3.0 is not FOSS yet. That was the point of the article


Of course we agree on that: it's a simple matter of fact.
Honeycomb is not FLOSS under any definition.

Free Software Definition?
No, we lack freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Open Source definition? Nope, it fails criteria 2: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.

Android creator Andy Rubin's definition of Open? Neither.

Up to 2.3.3 Android was FLOSS, and hopefully future version will be too, once the phone and tablet versions merge.
Right now, Android 3.0 is proprietary software.

Reply Parent Score: 2