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.
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).
WTF is "open" anyway? It doesn't mean shit when taken out of context.
Open-Source does mean that I (as an individual) have a lot of rights, including having the right to fork it in case I don't like the current stewardship.
Most of the Android eco-system is actually as
closed as with every other platform
That's bullshit.
The Android eco-system includes thousands of open-sourced Java libraries and cross-platform development tools that are also open-source. I can develop Android apps on Linux or Windows or OS X, depending on my mood. And I can modify those tools to make me more productive.
Yes, I don't have a direct influence on what Samsung might deploy on their phones, or on the code getting deployed in Android's master ; but then again, it's equally hard to have that effect on Linux, the kernel.
If you don't like it, fork it. That's what open source is about.
except the false advertising
An open-source license is a legally binding contract. That's not word of mouth or advertising.
You are right that previous versions of Android meet the Open Source Definition [1], once they were actually released and the source made available. Honeycomb does not, but Google claim that was just an anomaly and won't be repeated; we will have to wait and see, but it seems unlikely that they won't fulfil that promise.
I don't think that Android follows the spirit of open source though:
Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in. [2]
There is no peer-review or transparency about the Android development process (unless you only define peers to be multi-billion dollar megacorps).
>The Android eco-system includes thousands of open-sourced Java libraries and cross-platform development tools that are also open-source.
Irrelevant; there are vast numbers of open source libraries for Windows or OS X, doesn't make them Open Source operating systems.
>If you don't like it, fork it
Except I can't fork any of the recent versions or development builds. How do I fork Honeycomb? How do I fork Ice Cream Sandwich? What good is the 'right' to fork something when the actual source isn't available unless you pay Google millions of dollars?
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.
We can argue about the whole thing being "open", as there is no exact definition of that, but we can't argue about the released source code being "open source". You can fork that at your will, just respect the Apache 2.0 license terms.
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.
>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.
> 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.
Or Google is telling the truth, and Honeycomb is a temporary aberration that will be fixed upon the release of the next version in a few months. Why it is so hard to believe that Honeycomb is an OS that is not ready for public use (meaning in this case, put on phones and other such devices by manufacturers wanting to have the highest and latest version number Android when Honeycomb isn't designed for such use)? It isn't ideal and I wish they would just release the source and let the chips fall where they may, but there is no indication that Gingerbread is the last public release or the model is the second-latest is publicly available.
To me, the minimal definition of "open source" is that "if it's good enough to sell binaries to end users, it should be good enough to release source to developers", so by that definition, Honeycomb is not open source (although I have no reason to believe that it violates any open source licenses).
I've always found the argument that a product that is being sold to customers is "not ready for public use" specious.
If the Honeycomb delay is a temporary result of working too fast, why is Google giving internal presentations about how they can profit by restricting access to the source to key OEMs?
This just looks like smoke in the eyes from Oracle lawyers.