zlacker

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+(OP)
"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...

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

>>uberno+4
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+l
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+u
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.

>>pingsw+u
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+86
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.