

Google to Android Developers: 'Do Not Develop in the Open' - pushingbits
http://www.readwriteweb.com/hack/2011/09/google-to-android-developers-d.php

======
reemrevnivek
Android is open in the same sense that the Lua programming language
implementation is open. Lua is certified open-source software, and distributed
with a very liberal license, but PUC-Rio is in complete control of all the
development.

It's certified by the OSI, whose definition of "Open-source" is available at
<http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php>. To summarize, open-source
means (1) The software and modifications can be redistributed freely, (2) The
source code is available, (3) Users are free to modify the software. Android
meets these requirements.

The software is open-source. The project development is not open: See
<http://www.lua.org/license.html>

> Lua is free open-source software, distributed under a very liberal license
> (the well-known MIT license). It may be used for any purpose, including
> commercial purposes, at absolutely no cost. Just download it and use it.

> Where does Lua come from?

> Lua is designed, implemented, and maintained by a team at PUC-Rio, the
> Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Lua was born and
> raised in Tecgraf, the Computer Graphics Technology Group of PUC-Rio, and is
> now housed at Lablua. Both Tecgraf and Lablua are laboratories of the
> Department of Computer Science of PUC-Rio.

and [http://lua-list.2524044.n2.nabble.com/Lua-open-source-or-
not...](http://lua-list.2524044.n2.nabble.com/Lua-open-source-or-not-
td5586188.html#a5588414)

> An "open-source project" has one meaning, an "open-source software" has
> another. The project is not open source, the software (the result of the
> project) is.

Few people have had a problem with this principle as applied to Lua. I'm not
sure why this is confusing or newsworthy when it's applied to Android.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
> Few people have had a problem with this principle as applied to Lua. I'm not
> sure why this is confusing or newsworthy when it's applied to Android.

This is why people have a problem:
<http://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429>

~~~
generalk
What's wrong with that tweet? It fits the definition of open source that your
parent post described.

I think a lot of people's problem comes from Google having not yet released
the Honeycomb source code. It's one thing to say you're open source, provide
all your source for each release, but develop in private. It's another thing
to say you're open source, develop in private, and _not release the source
code to your released software._

~~~
Argorak
Except the fact that it tries to define "open" and not "open source". For me,
Mozilla Firefox or Ubuntu are open. All development, the planning etc. can be
viewed at at all time. All parts of the full stack are open and free. You can
participate if you want.

Android can be forked and inspected, which are the fine things about open
source, but it cannot be followed like you can with "open" software.

~~~
abraham
Everybody has a different definition of open.

~~~
Argorak
Thank you for a lesson in an obvious topic, and incidentally thats why I wrote
"For me", and not "For everyone".

But lets put it in another way: its hard to argue that all aspects of Android
are 'open' while its easy to argue that some of them are definitely 'closed'.
Whether that sums up to a "open" or "closed" verdict is not up to me. For me
it sums up as being somewhere in the grey area, more to the "closed" side
after the Honeycomb incident.

------
aptwebapps
I'm sorry, but I'm with Jason Kincaid on this one.

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the-bombshell-that-wasnt-
fo...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the-bombshell-that-wasnt-foss-patents-
android-scoop-misses-the-mark/)

There wasn't anything new in those documents. We already knew that Google only
put out final releases and we already knew about lead phones. It was all
public knowledge.

That doesn't mean that it has no bearing on the case, but it's not revelatory.

~~~
pushingbits
I normally wouldn't touch anything that has Florian Mueller's name attached
with a ten foot pole, and I certainly wouldn't bet any money on there being a
connection between this theory and the settlement talks. On the other hand,
that's not to say that I think it's impossible, but Mueller has been too far
off the mark too many times.

The real news here (as far as I am concerned) is that the judge has suggested
settlement talks, which to me, in my legal ignorance, sounds like he thinks
the case has some merit?

~~~
objclxt
Courts typically take a very dim view of parties that refuse to partake in
mitigation or attempt to settle: they rightly view it as wasting the court's
time, especially if the proposed settlement was near or exceeded what was
eventually decided. This is usually true regardless of the relative merits of
the case.

------
danmaz74
Community Open Source is a subset of the whole Open Source thing, but not
having an open development process doesn't make your code closed source.
Google releases Android source code under the Apache 2.0 license, which is
definitely open source, so: Where's the matter?

This just looks like smoke in the eyes from Oracle lawyers.

~~~
Argorak
This is true. But open sourcing your point releases (or not) doesn't make your
software "open" as Google wants to advertise. Most of the Android eco-system
is actually as closed as with every other platform, most glaringly the whole
development process. This piece just shows that this is exactly what Google
wants (which is perfectly fine for me, except the false advertising).

~~~
guelo
Amazon is about to fork Android, taking the result from thousands of man-
months worth of effort funded by Google and making it their own. I think
that's the definition of an open source project, anyone can fork it.

~~~
jensnockert
But can I fork it?

Nope, because I do not have access to the latest code, therefore I do not
consider it open or open source.

~~~
jbri
Why can't you fork it without the very latest code? You have access to the
code that ships, which is the requirement of viral open-source licenses.

You don't have access to the "very latest code" for the Linux kernel either,
that resides (in many separate pieces) on various developer's workstations. By
the time it actually gets committed, some other developer has made
modifications to their working copy (arguably making it "the latest version")
and not pushed that up yet.

~~~
anon1385
>You have access to the code that ships, which is the requirement of viral
open-source licenses.

Except we _don't_ have access to the code that ships. The code shipping on
Honeycomb device is not available.

>You don't have access to the "very latest code" for the Linux kernel either

Using an 8 month old version of the Android source is not the same as not
having access to kernel code that is still being written. With the linux
kernel you can access code as soon as it is committed to kernal.org, with
Android you only get to see it after an entire new version of the OS has been
released (and sometimes not even then). It is perhaps difficult to draw a
solid line here, and pedants will complain that you don't have access to code
that still only exists in Linus' brain, but there seems to be a pretty clear
difference to me.

~~~
jbri
> _Using an 8 month old version of the Android source is not the same as not
> having access to kernel code that is still being written. With the linux
> kernel you can access code as soon as it is committed to kernal.org, with
> Android you only get to see it after an entire new version of the OS has
> been released (and sometimes not even then). It is perhaps difficult to draw
> a solid line here, and pedants will complain that you don't have access to
> code that still only exists in Linus' brain, but there seems to be a pretty
> clear difference to me._

You're right, there is a difference. But the difference is one of _process_ ,
and isn't really related to the openness of the software itself.

~~~
anon1385
It very much is related to the software: Android 3.x is not open source
because this ' _process_ ' has meant the code has not been released.

------
doki_pen
The title is very misleading and should be changed. It sounds like Google is
telling the developers of apps that they can't use open source licenses, when
it's actually google as a company develops the Android OS in private, then
releases the source to the public after it is developed.

------
Tichy
As an untrained reader, I find this very strange. Not open sourcing your
products could be a reason to forbid a merger, because you could gain an
advantage over your competitors? Really? Is it illegal to be better than your
competitors?

It almost sounds as if there was a law that companies have to open source
their products, which I am pretty sure does not exist (IANAL, though).

~~~
chalst
Google _does_ open source Android. The point is about when they make a public
release of the source. They are only obliged to release the source when they
release the code to the public, and the point is that they don't do this any
earlier than they have to.

This does make the Android _development process_ less than open. It does not
stop Android being open source.

The relationship to the court case is that Google's development process is
very much at question in the issue of whether there is a violation of Oracle's
IP.

~~~
Tichy
I don't think they are obliged to do anything.

------
guelo
The bigger news is the settlement talks. Is Google really going to cave and
pay royalties?

------
blub
It's still open source if the source is published later, but I think being
open source is not enough any more (was it ever?). Android needs open
governance, right now it's Google's project and they control it as they see
fit.

~~~
Tichy
"being open source is not enough any more (was it ever?)"

Meanwhile Apple rakes in billions with closed source software. What's more,
people cheer them on for it and hail them as the saviors of mankind.

~~~
gurkendoktor
> people cheer them on for it and hail them as the saviors of mankind

[citation needed]?

Nobody is specifically cheering because it's closed source. I would cheer even
more if they had iOS _and_ opened it up for minor tinkering.

~~~
Tichy
I just deleted my rant that I wrote as a reply to this.

Look, there have been a zillion articles raving about Apple in the last two
weeks. Just google for yourself, don't ask me for citations about the most
blatantly obvious things. It really annoys me.

No, they usually don't cheer the closedness (although it happens often
enough), but they don't seem to mind it, either.

~~~
tychobrahe
I've been reading your comments for some time and you seem to have serious
anger problems when the subject is Apple. Also, you're very disrespectful to
Apple users, bringing the topic even when it has nothing to do with the
company. I seriously recommend a psychiatrist or counselour. Apple/Google are
not religions, my friend!!!

------
zura
I'd call it Shared source software or, to be precise, Later shared source
software.

------
deleo
C'mon Google, let us develop with Go or Python, I hate Java with the passion!

