Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Dec 2012 23:01 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 544290
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-04-11
Not it's not. Rule #1: If you can't compile a binary which works in at least one device from the source provided (aka without using any close-source software or binary blobs) , it's not open source. It's partially open source/mixed-model. Otherwise, any company that does partial source drops like the company that makes CrossOver can claim their product is open source.
Sorry, but lots of things are missing from Android, and it's not just drivers and Google's value added apps
(Play Store, Maps etc). Entire frameworks such as the GPS framework, the multimedia framework etc are missing.
Normally, a more rigid definition regarding whether a software product on sale is open source, would be the product sold (in Android's case, the product sold with the Nexus line) to fully correspond to the provided source, but Android doesn't even conform to the loose definition of open source, like the above.