zlacker

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+(OP)
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+G
"Well done, you've put in the bare minimum amount of effort required to still get away with the open-source moniker" is not particularly flattering...

>>uberno+(OP)
And honestly, the fact that we've come to this indicates just how completely Google has failed at being an open-source citizen.

Actually it just indicates the large number of analysts/trolls who were confidently proclaiming that Google would never release Android source again.

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

>>uberno+K
You are correct. That is approximately my feeling about the situation, but, like giving a dog a treat when it behaves well, I think it's good to praise companies for behaving adequately because I think it increases the chances that they will keep doing it.

You hear that, diBona? Keep releasing the code!

>>orange+11
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+a1
The kernel source was at http://android.git.kernel.org/ but that server was subsequently destroyed in an unrelated incident and at this point you'd need a time machine to verify that it was really there and hasn't just been backdated, but yeah, it was available.

>>uberno+(OP)
The code we are talking about is under an Apache 2.0 licence, they didn't have to release anything.

"open-source citizen" is in the eye of the beholder, if you are a die hard FOSS advocate then yes, they have failed. If you are happy with code being released when it is deemed ready (of course readiness in this case might have been influenced by marketing factors) then they have been quite successful.

>>pingsw+a1
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...

>>uberno+(OP)
"And honestly, the fact that we've come to this indicates just how completely Google has failed at being an open-source citizen."

If you can download the source, distribute it, modify it, collaborate, and install the modified version easily on your device; then it's a quantum leap forward from any other mass-market mobile device.

In my opinion, that's huge. Right now, google is offering you the ability to actually know what your phone is doing (a huge issue when it comes to government or corporate surveillance), and puts everyone on a level playing field when it comes to writing applications and improvements, and it will likely speed up the convergence of networks so that everything is data (thus eliminating the separate billing for voice and SMS).

Eventually there will be more open, collaborative development. But let's have some patience -- PC's took a long time to be liberated (even now, many people think linux is "not ready for the desktop" and it has a small share). What google is doing is bringing linux to everyone on a new platform and already getting real market share. That's no small achievement.

>>dtparr+O6
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.