Linked by AcacioMartins on Wed 6th Apr 2011 22:13 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source In a recent article Thom contributed his opinion to the discussion about the openness of Android that started when Google choose to withhold the source code for honeycomb, here are my 2 cents. In the article the obligations GPL puts on Google are made very clear. This makes it clear that Android is indeed an open-source project. However being open-source and being open aren't always the same thing.
Thread beginning with comment 469387
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Good one
by tuzor on Thu 7th Apr 2011 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Good one"
tuzor
Member since:
2007-08-07

It's a pun aimed at a comment made by some google fanboy in a previous article.
It's also pretty true at the same time.
I don't think you're very bright if you believe that Google is open. They certainly tried very hard in the previous years to portray this image of being open, however they are being betrayed by their recent actions.

Edited 2011-04-07 00:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Good one
by Laurence on Thu 7th Apr 2011 01:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Good one"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

It's a pun aimed at a comment made by some google fanboy in a previous article.
It's also pretty true at the same time.
I don't think you're very bright if you believe that Google is open. They certainly tried very hard in the previous years to portray this image of being open, however they are being betrayed by their recent actions.

I also don't think you're very bright if you think Google are "closed".

Google are just a company.

They're a company that proactively supports open source but they're also a company that feel they need to develop behind closed doors to get their software up to scratch. So what.

Either way, Google are just a company and all this talk of how "open" or "closed" Google might be is just pure BS from everybodies part.

So how about we all just grow up and talk about technology rather than arguing the semantics of "open"? Or is "open" the new KDE/GNOME flamewar? (ie pointless never-ending debate of personal opinions)

Edited 2011-04-07 01:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Good one
by nt_jerkface on Thu 7th Apr 2011 02:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Good one"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Google isn't an open company, their profits come from a carefully guarded proprietary search engine.

They don't even release the source to their internal build of Linux. They also don't release the source to their online services.

But they do take couch change from their proprietary search engine profits and spend it on various open source pet projects. With these pet projects they promote the false image that they are an open source company. Linux/FOSS fans buy into this image and then set themselves up for disappointment.

Red Hat is an open source software company.

Google is a proprietary marketing company.

Evil Empire Oracle contributes over twice the amount of code to the kernel as Google.

Google is not your open source boyfriend.

Reply Parent Score: 4