

Andy Rubin On Android’s Openness: Light On Community, Heavy On Open Source - fredoliveira
http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/10/andy-rubin-on-androids-openness-light-on-community-heavy-on-open-source/

======
ikono
> We make the code open source when the first device is ready.

What I don't understand is this: weren't people upset that 3.0 wasn't (still
isn't?) available when the Xoom launched? Did the Xoom not count as the first
device? I mean I honestly don't care either way, it just doesn't seem like he
addressed the issues I've been hearing about.

~~~
cube13
That's pretty much the problem. Google has not released the source for
Honeycomb, even though the first device is out, and several more are supposed
to be launched in the next month.

He's completely sidestepping the issue here. The issue isn't that Google's
development is not transparent or community oriented. Android is developed by
Google in-house, so it's their decision for when they should release the
source. Most of the time, they were fairly prompt about releasing the
source(somewhere around 1-2 weeks at most). Those delays are acceptable,
because Google probably did a final pass to take out useless comments and
other randomness that works it's way into any source tree.

The issue is that Android is supposed to be an Open Source OS, which means
that the source should be available if you can get the software. Since
Honeycomb hasn't had the source released, it really can't be called that.

------
runjake
Hmm, his definition seems to have changed:

<https://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429>

(it isn't true.)

~~~
angusgr
From second sentence of TFA: _In October Android Chief Andy Rubin provided his
first definition_ (links to tweet)

Then: _...Today during a press Q &A at Google I/O, Rubin gave a more detailed
explanation..._

------
cma
Sounds like a bunch of newspeak to avoid mentioning the copyright-assignment
policy for submitted patches.

~~~
Daishiman
Don't the FSF a several other software foundations have similar copyright
assignment requirements?

~~~
audidude
The FSF doesn't intend to relicense your contributions under a non (L)GPL
license, so it really isn't necessary as long as your contributions are under
that license.

~~~
wtracy
The last time I checked, the FSF still requires submitters to sign a copyright
assignment. Their rationale is that it is difficult in the U.S. to file suit
for copyright infringement when copyright of a work is not held by one single
entity.

Still, there's a world of difference between handing over copyright to a non-
profit organization that is chartered to further Free Software, versus handing
it over to a for-profit corporation and hoping for the best.

------
wtracy
There's already accepted terms for what he's describing, without trying to
claim a difference between "open source" and "community driven".

Free Software is software that you are free to run, modify, and redistribute.
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> The "open source" releases of
Android meet this definition (at least until it gets installed on hardware
with a locked bootloader).

The OSI's official Open Source Definition aside (which is mostly a bunch of
legalese) open source is a development model where different parties
contribute code as needed.

(Eric Raymond's the Cathedral and the Bazaar is a decent introduction:
[http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-
bazaar/cathedral...](http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-
bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html))

Android never followed an open source development style. Each version was
constructed in secret, then released to the public in a complete state.

I would honestly like to see Google switch to a true open source development
style, or to see some party with enough influence fork Android and continue
development in an open source manner.

------
pjriot
I wonder if they're just playing their cards close to their chest until the
Oracle lawsuits are done and dusted? If not, then this feels like a bait and
switch. I'm sure the open nature of android attracted a lot of attention for
them from manufacturers and the initial batch of users alike.

