
Google admits Android 'both open and closed' - barista
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/12/google_says_android_both_open_and_closed/
======
Kylekramer
_Google never had any qualms with releasing phone-centric Android code that
anyone could squeeze onto a tablet. Why not release a tablet-centric version
that anyone could attempt to squeeze onto a phone?_

I am fairly sure they did have qualms [1], and that is exactly why Google is
doing this now.

1: [http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-
communications/mobil...](http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-
communications/mobile-phones/google-android-not-optimised-for-tablets--715550)

~~~
njs12345
To prevent this surely Google could just make the terms under which a 3rd
party can distribute the closed-source bundled Android apps (Maps, Market,
GMail and so on) more restrictive. By doing that they could essentially
prevent anyone from shipping a fully functional build of Android commercially
without their permission while keeping the source for Honeycomb open and not
impacting on hobbyists..

------
ChuckMcM
"OpenVMS the only one word lie in the English language." -- Scott McNealy.

I find the 'heat' over this topic (as measured by column inches of ongoing
debate) fascinating. I used the McNealy quote above because when I joined Sun
in 1986 they had just gone public and they were championing "Open Systems."

As a concept this was pretty easy to explain, basically everything you needed
to know in order to reproduce an equivalently functioning system was
documented and unencumbered so that folks could create 'Sun compatible' Hard
disks (Fujitsu Eagles were very popular) without paying a 'tax' to Sun. It
also meant that as a company considering a significant investment in the
technology, if Sun vanished tomorrow you had enough information to keep all
your Sun gear running and third parties could continue to support it an create
new peripherals for it, Etc. Eric Schmidt's first "real" management job was
when he joined Sun and started heading up the systems group.

The 'open systems' tactic relies on the incumbent player staying 'closed' to
protect their turf for as long as possible, and it makes the alternative
credible for people who are putting investment capital at risk. In Sun's case
it was getting big players to bet on an untested OS (SunOS) and in Google's
case it was getting big players to bet on an untested phone OS (Android).

Had Google abandoned Android 1.6 and walked away, all the players at the time
who were using it would have been able to still fix bugs and keep shipping
handsets based on it without support from the big G.

Now Android is the 'dominant' smartphone OS (in terms of volume) at least, and
there are lots of signs that Google is changing the model to 'closed' to
protect its turf, just as Sun closed ranks around Solaris and its own CPU
architecture (SPARC). But there is a problem, in that the dominant _tablet_ OS
is not Android. So for that market one might want to still be playing the
'open' card, but if its the same as the phone OS then we play the 'closed'
card, and we end up with 'both open and closed.'

Google clearly wants Android to be successful. Whether or not you and I can
get some, all, or none of the source is no doubt measured against that razor.
It is impolitic of them to say to your face, "Look if you're not going to be
making a million units a month we really don't care a whole lot what you think
we should or should not be doing." but I am sure that if lying had not been
invented that is exactly what they would say.

Google makes money, lots of it, and even when these conversations happen
inside the 'plex there is the reality that leaving money on the table is never
a long term strategy. Just like that free toaster for opening a checking
account isn't really free.

I'll predict here today (and where perhaps Google's web crawler will be able
to find it again in 5 years) that by 2016 it will be impossible to reload
software on your phone if the original phone came with Goggle software but
isn't sold by Google, whether they call it 'Android' or something else.
Vendors will pay more to have the ability to limit your choices, Google will
give them that capability to get paid more, the vendors will use that
capability to limit your choices.

------
wvenable
Android is not an open collaborative project like the Linux kernel or many
distributions. Android, is still, however open source in so much as that
Google has released the source under a license that permits derivative works.
It is however, not Free Software, as it is Apache licensed.

One needs to be careful not to mix terms. Android is "open source" but that's
as far as they go. It's not Free Software and the development process is not
collaborative.

~~~
micampe
_> It is however, not Free Software, as it is Apache licensed_

The FSF considers the Apache license to be free software (and GPLv3
compatible) <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>

~~~
wvenable
You are right, FSF considers it a free software license but it's not a
_copyleft_ license. Google is not required to give out the code. It's
compatible with the GPL because you can re-license Apache code under that
license.

~~~
micampe
I was only replying at your statement that Android is not free software: it
is, by the letter of the law, even if it doesn't feel like it at all, in
spirit.

~~~
wvenable
I don't know if my reply came off as hostile, but I am thankful for your
correction. I'm quite surprised that the FSF is so forgiving about what they
consider a Free Software License. These sorts of Android "shenanigans" seems
like exactly the sort of thing they don't like.

~~~
angusgr
I don't see how GPL would make much difference to Android here.

Even if AOSP (Android Open Source Project) was GPL licensed, Google owns the
copyright. Which means they can still make early releases to vendors (like
Motorola for the Xoom) under a different license, and then make the public
AOSP release under an OSS license later.

This is no different from Trolltech's former model with Qt, or the dozens of
other free software libraries where the developer makes some extra money from
non-GPL Licensing on the side.

The point is that Android 2.3 is Free Software, even if Android 3.0 is not
Free Software _yet_. Google can't do anything to take back 2.3 now, it has
freed it.

<Speculation> I'd be very surprised if Motorola got Android 3.0 for the Xoom
under any OSS license. I imagine it would have been given to them under a
special proprietary NDA-equipped license, or maybe even only licensed as a
binary. </Speculation>

~~~
wvenable
> Even if AOSP (Android Open Source Project) was GPL licensed, Google owns the
> copyright.

Does Google own the copyright to contributed code? I assume the Android
project contains patches from outside developers and they don't require
copyright to be assigned to Google.

~~~
angusgr
That's a very good point, even besides the contributions there are some Apache
licensed components in AOSP that Google have brought in themselves rather than
had donated.

I guess in my hypothetical scenario, they could relicense them as GPL but then
they'd have redistribution requirements via GPL virality - at least for those
bits.

Or they'd need to restructure their parts of the project around them to avoid
the viral aspect, like they have for the Linux kernel.

I guess my point is more that not every part of every Free Software project is
always released to the public under that license. "Android 3.0 is not Free
Software yet, but will be" is not that different to other common OSS project
scenarios.

------
justina1
It seems to me they had two choices with the Honeycomb code: release something
sub par or wait. And it seems like they landed on the side of quality over
speed.

Does that decision benefit their partners and hurt others? Yes. And if you
want to argue holding the code back was a business move and not a quality
issue, that's fair, but it's the one card they can play to ensure high-quality
devices in the market.

As an Android user, I say let them keep it.

~~~
cube13
But Google has released the code to partners. Motorola has shipped the Xoom.
Acer is releasing a tablet in a couple of weeks. HTC and Samsung are also
releasing devices in the next few months.

If the code is good enough to go in production devices, why isn't it good
enough to be released to the public?

~~~
orangecat
_If the code is good enough to go in production devices, why isn't it good
enough to be released to the public?_

It's quite easy to create a code base that mostly works well, but whose
structure and organization is utterly unsuitable for a public release. This is
especially true when you have a marketing-driven deadline (e.g. "ship before
the iPad 2") and have to take shortcuts.

~~~
nathanb
For an open source project the code _is_ the product. If you claim to be open
yet release your bits before the code, you are deluding yourself.

The quote from Savoia and Copeland in the article seems to be saying that
Google won't release the code until the product sees market in order to
maintain their competitive advantage. That's one thing. But when they continue
to sit on the code when the product is out, that's another thing entirely.

~~~
PetrolMan
It hasn't been widely released yet. As far as I know the Xoom is it. Others
are in development or being prepared for release.

~~~
cube13
Asus has shipped a tablet with Honeycomb on it. Also, they have also released
the GPL-covered Linux kernel code as well.

------
michaelpinto
I hate to say it, but if it makes it easier to develop and support apps I
wouldn't mind it if Android is closed. It just strikes me that there is too
much fragmentation in the market, and since Google isn't doing their own phone
they need to control what's out there.

~~~
orangecat
_if it makes it easier to develop and support apps I wouldn't mind it if
Android is closed_

That would only make things worse. Fragmentation is caused by the incompetence
and/or malice of manufacturers and carriers, and they're going to have the
source regardless of whether it's publicly available. All closing the source
would do is shut down projects like CyanogenMod, which reduce fragmentation by
bringing current Android versions to more devices.

------
timtadh
dumb question:

Is Google violating the GPL by not releasing code that is shipping on devices
(eg. Xoom). Didn't Tivo end up having to give up some of there code because it
was based on linux? Is this a similar situation?

~~~
natesm
Google releases the code that they have to (the kernel, anything else GPLed).
Most of Android is not under the GPL (and it was written by Google anyways, so
they can do whatever they want).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Lice...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_\(operating_system\)#Licensing)

~~~
cube13
Asus has also released the Honeycomb code that is covered by the GPL for their
tablet: [http://www.androidtabletworld.com/android-news/asus-eee-
pad-...](http://www.androidtabletworld.com/android-news/asus-eee-pad-
transformer-source-code-now-available)

------
joshu
do not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no

------
navs
Often when I hear someone talk about Android, their first argument for the
platform is: "it's open". I don't see that likely to change. "Open" has become
as synonymous with Android as "Apps" are with the iPhone.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Android has strong claims to be "open", even if it was, or became, closed
source e.g. I can easily install apps I wrote myself, I can set an alternative
browser (and various other apps) to replace the system provided one, I can
install alternative browser engines, it's made by multiple manufacturers etc.
These things are sadly not universally true in mobile devices. GPL kernels and
source code availability is extra "openness" on top of that.

------
mattmanser
I found the last paragraph very strange:

 _[Google] has every right to restrict what its Android partners can and can't
do_

Maybe legally they do, but morally. Not at all. I don't think they do have
every right at all. They promised an open source platform and then started
close sourcing the updates to force partners to use their code in a particular
way. Doesn't sounds one bit open source to me.

I bet some manufacturers are starting to feel worried and very, very stupid
right now. They've given up their own development efforts and found out
they've sold their soul and their future to a wolf in sheep's clothing.

At least Nokia did it with eyes open.

------
cparedes
Clopen software?

