Measuring Openness In Open Source Projects

suy writes "Several open source projects exist under a variety of licenses, and we qualify them as free/open source depending on the license under which the final product is released. But there are other considerations, like the existence of a public roadmap, participation in the decision making, or access to the latest source code to make contributions. Vision Mobile has published a report that compares and measures the openness of several open source projects: Android, Eclipse, Linux, MeeGo, Mozilla, Qt, Symbian (till the existence of the Foundation) and WebKit. Eclipse and Linux scored the highest and Android the lowest." A related article about the report asks whether open source needs corporate backing to truly succeed.

Comments

Openness

[zget]

Eclipse and Linux scored the highest and Android the lowest.

It's no really a wonder Android scored the lowest. Google isn't truly a open source company, they only give out source when it suits them and even then they regain most control of it with no discussion or decisions with other non-google developers. Most of their products are also either so crippled (Chronium) or limited by other means (Android and HW makers drivers) that they're practically unusable for real use or development.

One of the strongest selling point of open source is that you can make a little change or fix yourself if you feel the need to. Since Chronium isn't truly the source code of Chrome you have to give up lots of other things if you want to make that change. For making a small change it would probably be better to disassembly Chrome and make the change in ASM. Android is basically useless to you if you want to make a change since you cannot run it on your phone. It's nice and all that they provide code (even with stripped parts), but there is no practical use for it. Besides, most of their products are closed source just like their competitors. There's a really insightful and interesting post here about Google's practices.

Re:Openness

[beelsebob]

Yep, and yet somehow people still scream about how open Android is and how locked down iOS is.

Re:Openness

[walshy007]

Android is basically useless to you if you want to make a change since you cannot run it on your phone.

Tell that to the masses of people that have ditched the vendor supplied version of android for customized versions.. it is actually pretty darn common amongst young people. Even non-geeks, all it takes is seeing one extra feature they like to convince and having a half hour of spare time.

Re:Openness

[Baloroth]

Most of their products are also either so crippled (Chronium) or limited by other means (Android and HW makers drivers) that they're practically unusable for real use or development.

Really. What about all the third-party manufacturers making Android devices without a license from Google (Archos comes to mind, although in retrospect they might have a license... point is they don't need one)? Or how about CyanogenMod or other modifications for Android based on the OSS part? Lots of people use them, and they work on lots of phones. That is precisely the advantage of OSS that you claim Google doesn't allow. And what "stripped parts"? According to Wikipedia, the entire Android OS made by Google, including the telephony part, is OSS. The only closed source part is the Marketplace, and that should have obvious reasons. (also, it isn't technically part of the OS) Honeycomb, of course, isn't OSS ATM, but again, they have good reasons for that.

Android is most absolutely not closed-source like its competitors. Seriously, is iOS open in absolutely any way whatsoever? What closes Android down on phones are Samsung etc. locking down the phone in hardware. HTC, IIRC, allows their phones to load custom firmware with no modifications or hacking needed. I know you keep saying "Google isn't the geeky company they used to be", but honestly, I've never seen you offer any real evidence of that.

As for Chrome/Chromium, well, there you have a point. Google is an odd kind of open source company. Their business doesn't depend upon releasing code and community development, like many such companies do (Red Hat, Mozilla, etc.) they do it more because they want the community to have it than anything else. And that, IMO, makes them even more of a geeky company than others that are more concerned with being open sourced because they rely on it. Google releases open source whenever it is practical for them to do so, but they don't rely on open source development like many companies do (or not in the same way) which leads me to suspect that releasing the source code is more an act of good faith than anything else.

Re:Openness

[tlhIngan]

Android is most absolutely not closed-source like its competitors.

Do not confusion Android with AOSP. They are two separate versions. Android is commercially licensed (+GPL2 Linux), while AOSP is Apache with GPL2 for the Linux kernel. And getting Android does take money - you have to be in the OHA (so there is a licensing fee, but it's relatively small and it's not per-unit, but an annual one).

Periodically, Google pushes code from Android into AOSP.

OHA members get access to the latest versions of the Android code before release, but they also have to agree to conditions to use that code, conditions not present in AOSP, such as support for 18 months (no more release and forget - Google's demanding 18 months of support and updates), less fancy dressings and customizations, and unlockable bootloaders.

OHA members do this so they can also license (separately) "with Google" because Android phones are relatively useless without the Market app because there are few alternate sources that have a comprehensive selection of apps. (Hell, most "free" apps rarely put up an apk for download - just a QR code to grab it through the marketplace).

And Archos is also a member of the OHA now - they have to be in roder to release a 3.x tablet. Only OHA members have access to Honeycomb source, and while there are hacked versions of Honeycomb around, I wouldn't trust them in a production product. Though, whether or not Archos abides by their open-bootloader thing, that's another issue. Historically Archos devices auto-lock to the hard drive (so you can't replace it), and have signed bootloaders and kernel, which also check for signed user spaces. Archos Androids were "open" in they could run apps, any roots and jailbreaks lasted until the next reboot.

AOSP may be open source, but it's more like "let's just dump what we have" moreso than a true open-source project - the stuff goes from Android -> AOSP typically.

Re:Openness

[phantomfive]

Honeycomb, of course, isn't OSS ATM, but again, they have good reasons for that.

There really isn't a good reason. If your code is good enough to sell on a device, it's good enough to be opened.

A lot of Android fanboys do logical loops explaining that Android is truly open, and some parts of it are, but a lot of it isn't. Accept it.

Re:Openness

[beelsebob]

Android Open Source Project – A related project to android, but not android.

Re:Openness

[beelsebob]

That gets you the open source parts of the device... who ever said the drivers were open source? Note, in 99.9% of cases, the drivers *aren't* open source.

Re:Open Source has nothing to do with openness

[beelsebob]

Uhhh, no... "Open Source" is not a license – it's an idea. There are many licenses that are written with the idea in mind. The idea is *everything* to do with openness.

While open governance is good it is not the point.

[luvirini]

While the fact that an open source project has open governance is good if you want to continue using the main codebase, the most important factor by far is the right to fork if needed.

It is the ability to take the code, change it and post your version that really will eventually force the "right" things in any open source product that many enough people care about.

Any "open governance" can be stopped at any point, but once given code is out in open source it is "safe" provided enough people care.

Re:Some important applications are Market-exclusiv

[h4rr4r]

So complain to Chase. Besides you can just use their website.