Slashdot Mirror
Google's Honeycomb Source Code Release Is On Ice
itwbennett writes "'Ice Cream Sandwich', that is. Apparently it's source code delay week, as Google joins Apple in delaying the release of source code for open source licensed software. Except, unlike Apple, which promptly released the LGPL WebKit code in question Monday afternoon, Google stated yesterday that it will not release the source code for Android 3.0 (Honeycomb) until after the release of the next version of Android (Ice Cream Sandwich). This is not necessarily news, since Google said last month that source code would be held for an indeterminate time and released when it was ready. It's just that now 'indeterminate' has an actual date: post-launch of Ice Cream Sandwich. The question, says blogger Brian Proffitt, is: 'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?'"
This story has been covered here before... earlier today.
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?" Well, see, anyone who would fight them uses google mail....
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?
Actually, this is precisely why they use the ASL instead of the GPL.
google cach of old ars article with good explanation.
And seriously, the name Brian "Proffitt" sounds like someone trying to generate clicks.
Didn't we cover this yesterday?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Maybe I'm missing something but this looks like a dup in less than 24 hours. That's impressive, even by slashdot standards...
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/05/11/0041250/Android-Honeycomb-Will-Not-Be-Open-Sourced
How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?
Because it's licensed under the Apache Software License, which does not require that the source code be offered?
Two things. Number one: Google is the copyright holder for most of the software in question. Any community contributors presumably have copyright assignments to Google. Even if the code was released under GPLv3 (and it isn't) they would be under no obligation to release the code because they own it and can do whatever they like. The copyright holder cannot by definition, violate a license they grant. For the stuff that they aren't the copyright holder (e.g. the kernel), they have complied with the license and released the source code where required. Number two: the Apache Software License Version 2 is a non-copyleft license. Read it carefully and please tell me where it says that redistribution requires source code release.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
You know what would be cool? If Google actually produced real sandwich ice cream with the Android shape: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/05/10/icecreamsandwich.jpg
Hey, you've heard it first time from me! Google I just want 10% on this.
It is rare to find an article that attempts to analyze legal issues on OSS licenses that is even more horrifying than the worst comments from people pretending to be lawyers on Slashdot.
I don't tend to complain about article quality on slashdot, but this one is pretty extreme. The whole article is basically some random dude making himself look like an idiot by being clueless about OSS licenses and then pretends to be a lawyer. At least on Slashdot, people do know OSI approved licenses do not require source to be provided with the binary.
AND, as others have already noticed, it's a dupe!
Don't quote me on this.
Or because the Apache license is a BSD style license that allows for this.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
itwbennett misrepresents what Proffitt said. Proffitt noted accurately that the Apache Software License doesn't require the release of the source code. Not just not immediately, it doesn't require it to ever be released.
Er... Actually both points allow them to not release anything they like.
This seems like more of the same anti-Google FUD that we've been bombarded with recently. It is a classic political tactic called "attack your opponent's strength". One of the reasons Android has taken off like gangbusters is because it really truly is open source while iOS and WP-7 are certainly not. So the game being played is to stir up a ruckus about Android not being open. The same tactic was used recently when people's hair caught on fire because Google had the ability to nuke malware apps. The story was not "hey, Android is open and safe", the story was that Google was being evil.
I'm currently working on a GPLv2 (for historical reasons) project intended to be part of a Linux distro. Guess what? I don't release the source code until it is ready for alpha and beta testing. Releasing it before basic functionality is in place simply wastes everybody's time and energy. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Google dealing the release of their software until they think it is the best time to release it. If Google released early instead then many of the people bitching and moaning now would have been bitching and moaning about Google releasing code before it was ready.
These unscrupulous tactics have been around for a long time. I'm not surprised that they are being used in this context but I am a little saddened that people seem to keep falling for the same old malarkey.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Thanks, now we have nothing on-topic left to discuss. I suggest we devote the rest of this thread to discussions of ponies. I like them stewed, how about you?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
...it's funny how much they sound like a Mervyn's holiday sale commercial ("open-open-open-open") when they're comparing themselves to Apple, but it appears that it's not the general philosophy that's different; it's only the specific parameters that appear to be at play here.
Based on my understanding of the ASL, they have every right to do this. But with this and other recent decisions, they need to STFU about being the most open platform around. Who cares how open it is if modifying your installation breaks your contract with your wireless vendor? Who cares how open software is when one vendor controls what's in the "official" distro? And who cares how open something is when, as soon as critical mass is reached, they suddenly decide to withhold some releases?
Personally, I care more about ongoing supportability. I'd like for the "fragmentation" question to be cleared up enough in the developer community that they are more likely to create Android apps simultaneously with their iOS apps. I'd like for hardware vendors to be forced to support at least a few major updates. If they have to stop yelling, "Open!", that's fine with me.
Of course, that being said, "Open" is a welcome addition, but if there's always an asterisk by it, then it's not a reasonable marketing bullet point.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Some of the other well known blogs have their utterly stupid people. I know. Usually the stupid people on Slashdot are of a little higher quality. Not on legal matters though. They are just as stupid as utterly dumb Engadget commenters.
I don't know how you'll manage it, but do try to get this through your thick thick skull:
Google does not have to release the Honeycomb source. Not because they have expensive lawyers or some shit like that. It is because they are not required to.
1. They fucking own the source code they are not releasing. AND even if they did not
2. Apache license does not require it.
Gawd, extreme stupidity is infuriating.
The Apache License is a free software license authored by the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). The Apache License requires preservation of the copyright notice and disclaimer, but it is not a copyleft license — it allows use of the source code for the development of proprietary software as well as free and open source software.
Apache License (emphasis mine)
After that people will start to download these custom roms and put them on phones and have a poor user experience and possibly get turned off android..
I think your almost on the mark, but not quite. This isn't about individuals, its about manufacturers of cheap knock-offs further diluting the market, and tarnishing Android's image. Motorola, and other first tier distributors won't release Honeycomb on phones because their partners and know better (and might be under contractual obligations). Second tier distributors probably won't release it because they have some brand image to preserve, and might have management with a brain. Third tier manufacturers are the big problem, since they'll release crappy phones with Honeycomb which will be terrible user-wise. A couple story coming out from bad customers, or bad reviews based on third tier phones using a tablet (not phone) OS would hurt Android, and the first tier producers (who are privy to the source).
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey