zlacker

>>patric+(OP)
In the past, I've spent a fair bit of time criticizing Google for calling Android "open source", but not releasing the source. Now that it appears that they are actually doing it, let me be the first to say that this is great.

Well done, Google.

>>pingsw+S1
What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ).

This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's source code in the future with a significant delay compared to early-access partners. There's no reason to congratulate them now nor complain louder some months from now, they'll continue to do what makes sense for them from a business standpoint. The only news are the yet-to-be-discovered jewels in the just-released source code.

>>vladd+J2

  > This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the 
  > fact that they will continue to release Android's source 
  > code in the future with a significant delay compared to 
  > early-access partners.

As of today there is not a single phone on the market that runs Android 4.0. Besides, open-source does not mean open-development. They have every right to release the code to whomever they want, whenever they want. And because they release the source to most (as of now, 3/4) major releases, that absolutely counts as "open source."

>>genera+rg
Besides, open-source does not mean open-development.

Google has done a lot to confuse this by referring to everything as just "open". They were still calling Android open even when it didn't meet Andy Rubin's own tweeted 'definition of open'.