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
So... call me crazy, but I think it's wrong to praise a project which claims to be open-source for, um, actually releasing source. And honestly, the fact that we've come to this indicates just how completely Google has failed at being an open-source citizen.

>>uberno+Vb
Yeah, I see your point. But I think it would be lame for me to make fun of them for a year (or however long Honeycomb has existed in closed-source form) and then not at least acknowledge that they did finally release the source. I said "well done," but maybe "at least you're in compliance with the GPL" would be more appropriate.

>>pingsw+Bc
They've always been in compliance with the GPL; the Honeycomb kernel sources were always available.

>>orange+Wc
I hadn't heard that. Is that verifiable by any means at this point?

It still doesn't justify the "open source" moniker, but it's still good.

>>pingsw+5d
I suppose they could have backdated google groups, but here is JBQ's announcement of the 3.2 GPL's parts being released in July. http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/6410b447...

And here's a thread discussing building the 3.1 GPL'd code in May. http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_threa...

>>dtparr+Ji
Thanks for the links; they're convincing. I'm surprised that Google hasn't made their GPL compliance here more prominent. It's something I've heard criticized, but it sounds like the criticisms are illegitimate.