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'.

>>greyis+9o
"open" is an overloaded term that doesn't mean anything nowadays. "open source" on the other hand has a clear definition and Android definitely fits that definition.

Even yesterday, when Android 3/4 was not available as open-source, Android 2.2 and 2.3 which are the most deployed versions were definitely available as open-source.

And this is relevant, because that's the power of open-source. If you're unhappy with how Google is managing the project you do have the right to fork it. Amazon did just that. Xorg also came into existence that way, amongst other projects.

And yes, it takes resources and you've got to make it popular somehow and that ain't easy and I also fear that Google may close future versions of Android completely, but is it mature enough for a fork to be possible and to survive? Hell yes. Can the parent (Google) attack forks based on patents? No, because the Apache license protects you from that scenario (it's a little ironic that a pro-commercial license is safer than GPL v.2)

Which is why I consider Android to be a lot more "open" than the other 2 alternatives floating around, iOS and WinMo. That's my own definition anyway, which is why I began by highlighting the meaninglessness of the word.