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?'"

Comments

Obvious

[LordPhantom]

'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....

ASL for this reason.

[ustolemyname]

'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.

Binspam

[OverlordQ]

Didn't we cover this yesterday?

Re:New low for slashdot

[Bill Dimm]

Wrong on two counts:
1) It was covered yesterday, not today.
2) It is not a new low for Slashdot. Slashdot reaches such lows with great regularity.

New record

[tool462]

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

Answering your own question

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Sure they can do it

[dido]

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.

Re:Sure they can do it

[ustolemyname]

Not if they are the copyright holder, having had all contributions assigned to them. Then the GPL is simply terms they can choose to use in distributing the source to others, but they can distribute their own binaries of their own code however they want to under any license they want. Many things are multiply licensed like this (ie, what ID Software does with their old game engines).

"Legal analysis" from clueless bloggers

[sydneyfong]

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!

Re:"Legal analysis" from clueless bloggers

[PopeRatzo]

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.

But you're missing the point of this story, which is that Apple is wonderful because they released the code for something but Google is horrible because they're delaying the release of the code for something.

Here's a line from the summary that gives away the game:

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

This story is Apple P.R. Any mention of OSS or source code or Ice Cream Sandwiches is strictly coincidental.

Another way this story could have been written is: "Apple is double-plus good and Google is the sux". At least that simple statement would have avoided the danger of the author demonstrating his ignorance of OSS licenses, which has now served to obscure the desired pro-Apple message. So the story becomes about the cluelessness of an author rather than the transcendental wonderfulness of Apple compared to the awful horribleness of Google.

Whichever "New Media Strategies" outfit Apple hired to put this stuff out is about to fire one of its "social media associates" I think.

Re:Simple answer

[GweeDo]

Or because the Apache license is a BSD style license that allows for this.

Google is not shipping binaries (AFAIK)

[DrJimbo]

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.

For him, it's a legitimate question...

[msauve]

Since he apparently can't find or read Apache's FAQ, which plainly states, with regard to their license:

It does not require you to: include the source of the Apache software itself, or of any modifications you may have made to it, in any redistribution you may assemble that includes it...

End of Thread

[spun]

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?

Re:Simple answer

[drb226]

This.

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)