

Where's the Android 3.0 Honeycomb source code? - daspecster
http://www.pointlessrants.com/2011/01/android-3-0-for-the-rest-of-us/

======
callahad
Grr. That's not how the GPL works. Only folks to whom the software has been
distributed are entitled to a copy of the source. In particular, the author
seems to confuse open source software with open development processes.

To answer the specific questions in the article:

1\. _Well where did [Asus] get the source code for [Android 3.0]?_

Asus is a member of the Open Handset Alliance. Since they're a member of the
organization responsible for developing Android, they necessarily have access
to source code to their unreleased products.

2\. _Well where did they get the source code for [the new music player]?_

Note that the title of the linked article is "Download the _leaked_ Android
Honeycomb music app now." This means that someone with privileged access to
unreleased Android software made a copy of that and released it publicly, and,
most likely, illegally.

3\. _I don’t see it? I can’t find it? There’s no updates for the SDK that
contain the 3.0 API calls?_

Correct. Android 3.0 has not been released yet, and thus, its source code is
not available to anyone outside of the Open Handset Alliance.

4\. _So Asus has some kind of special deal with Google to be able to get early
access to the “open” platform which is dubbed “Android”?_

Yes and no. Asus and Google are both members of the Open Handset Alliance,
which owns and develops Android. Google doesn't own Android, they simply
contribute a great deal of engineering talent to the Open Handset Alliance.
Thus, both Asus and Google have access to unreleased versions of Android.

5\. _Where is Honeycomb for the rest of us?_

Unavailable. You're only legally entitled to a copy of the Honeycomb source if
you purchase a device with Honeycomb on it, or otherwise legitimately receive
the software. The Open Handset Alliance has decided to distribute publicly the
source code to released versions of Android, rather than only distributing
corresponding source to individuals who purchase devices. This is above and
beyond their legal obligations under the GPL.

Android is developed privately, but released publicly under an open source
license. Nothing in that license compels the Open Handset Alliance to work in
public.

~~~
theBobMcCormick
Not to detract from your excellent reply, but I believe most of the Android
source is under the Apache 2.0 license
(<http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html>). So even folks who've been
distributed a copy of the software are not entitled to the source for most of
Android (there are some exceptions, such as the Linux kernel used by Android).

~~~
callahad
Holy cow, you're right! I knew Dalvik was built with the help of Harmony, but
for whatever reason, the broader implications / possibilities of that never
really clicked. Thanks!

------
theBobMcCormick
Android is Open Source, but the development process is not and has never been
particularly open. The Gingerbread source is currently a closed branch, only
accessible to Google and (apparently) select partners.

This has been the way of things for _every_ Android release, so it's not like
this is anything new or newsworthy about Gingerbread.

Although my guess would be the blog author already _knows_ this, and is just
trying to be snarky by pretending to not understand that just because a piece
of software is open source, doesn't mean all the development will be done
openly.

------
martythemaniak
Since when does open-source mean you have to push every single commit you
make?

I guess my point is, quit being an annoying pedant. We all know the source
will be on kernel.org when it's done.

------
51Cards
I should have commented here instead... repasting...

Very simply you are correct, it’s not available yet until it’s complete.
Google I’m sure gives hardware manufacturers early access to the code base so
they can test prototypes but only the GA release is available to everyone.
Quite frankly I think this is very wise because I like knowing that something
I grab isn’t built on a half-baked alpha of Honeycomb. Let Google finish its
development work then everyone can muck with the final release and we’ll all
be on the same page.

If people think this isn’t open then try getting iOS to play with at any
point, or consider that for fun I installed Gingerbread on a WinMo HTC Touch
Pro the other day. Very simply when you’re working with a host of hardware
developers on a major new OS release Google is wise to keep the development
centralized until each GA version. You can’t have Bob from Poughkeepsie check
in something that, while perhaps an improvement, just broke 4 prototypes and
several millions in development at Samsung. You would get a stable version of
Android every 2 years, not 6 months.

------
guyzero
This rant seems heavy on the pointless.

~~~
daspecster
As the domain suggests...that's kind of what we do. We _try_ to keep it
interesting and ask good questions or provide good resources.

------
ceejayoz
Open source doesn't mean open development.

~~~
waterlesscloud
But isn't the complaint that the product has been delivered to one vendor on a
preferential basis?

~~~
trotsky
You're free to do that with the GPL. If you deliver a binary to a 3rd party
you need to offer them the source. If they get the source from you, they are
free to pass it on to someone else, but they don't have to.

------
apakatt
Open development or not - I would none the less be pissed if any of my
competitors got access to the new SDK and tools ahead of me just because they
had signed some special deal. I wonder how these "special partners" are
selected. Anyone know?

~~~
callahad
List of special partners:
<http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html>

Frequently Asked Questions about the Alliance:
<http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_faq.html>

Specifically:

 _Who can join the Open Handset Alliance?_

The Open Handset Alliance brings together companies in the mobile ecosystem
that each contribute to the effort in various ways. We welcome companies
willing to make serious and ongoing contributions to openness in the mobile
world.

 _Who do we contact to learn about joining the Open Handset Alliance?_

Email us at info@openhandsetalliance.com

Did that answer your question?

~~~
wmf
Even within the OHA it seems that some companies get Android before others.
Didn't Verizon get 2.0 first, HTC for 2.1, and Samsung for 2.3?

------
daspecster
Awesome guys! You've educated me!

