Android 4.0 Source Code Coming "Soon"

itwbennett writes "Good news today for those of you who have been waiting for news about whether Google would be opening up the ICS source and for those of you who thought it was gone for good. Android engineer Dan Morrill revealed new information in the Android Building Google group yesterday evening, saying that Google plans 'to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it's available on devices.'"

Comments

Honeycomb

[NoobixCube]

The only reason they didn't release the Honeycomb source wasn't because of some shift to evilly exploiting the open source community (*cough* DARWIN), it was because it really really wasn't intended for phones. Google likely didn't want manufacturers hacking it into running on phones and giving a largely unsatisfactory experience. They always said this, and people still suspected Google of shifty evil motives. The ICS source being the unification of phone and tablet branches should keep people happy for a while...

Re:Honeycomb

[PhunkySchtuff]

Open Source doesn't mean "I'll release the source for this because I think it's useful to you" or "I'll not release the source to this, because we don't want you to hurt yourself, even though we're claiming that it's as easy as "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git. kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make""

Open Source means you release the source. Plain and simple.

Re:Honeycomb

[PhunkySchtuff]

Personally, I agree with their decisions. If something's going to be crap, don't release it until it's fixed.
Don't be taking a holier-than-thou stance and say you're open and the competition is closed though.

Re:Honeycomb

[Imbrondir]

I think the confusion is between Open Source, and Open Development.

The id Tech engines are usually released as open source after several years in use as closed source. But when it's released it's still 100% "Open Source".

Re:Honeycomb

[shellbeach]

Don't be taking a holier-than-thou stance and say you're open and the competition is closed though.

Except that they are holier than either Apple or MS -- they are releasing their code base as open source (and not doing anything to stop AOSP-based ROMs).

And here's the thing: even if Google turned around tomorrow and said that they were never going to release any more source code, period, it wouldn't matter: people such as the CM team would continue to develop the existing code, and we'd still have a fully-functional open sourced phone OS running on top of linux. That used to be every geek's dream five years ago, and we've got it in spades. You don't need any closed source (Google) code to run a fully-functional Android system -- the only things you'll miss out on without the Google apps is a native Gmail client (which doesn't matter, as you still get the native email client OSS) and the Market (which doesn't matter because you can side-load apps, and even use a marketplace like GetJar's if you want to have a market interface). There is no way you could claim that iOS or WP7 provide anything like this level of openness or freedom.

To me, that's worth a few brownie points for Google any day, and Android definitely gets my vote in the OS-of-choice awards.

Re:I thought

[mwvdlee]

I can predict the next story already: "Android 4.0 Source Code Coming Any Day Now".
Followed by "Android 4.0 Source Code Coming Tomorrow".
After that there will be "Android 4.0 Source Code Coming Today".
Followed on the same day by "Android 4.0 Source Code Just Released".
And the next day "Android 4.0 Source Code Released Yesterday".
Closing with "Android 4.0 Source Code Release Confirmed".

So... please dump your comments to any of those below here and /. can skip posting them and post some actual news instead.

Re:"Soon" ?

[julesh]

I think the general idea is that quotation marks have been used because the word's a quotation. May be wrong, but that was just the impression I got.

I think Google does not understand open source

[Errol backfiring]

Why wait till the software is stable? Even if you do believe in the myth that software ever is finished enough, isn't the one of the purposes of open source to have a few extra eyeballs to check if it is mature? There are zillions of real open source projects with both stable versions for everyday use and current state for development. Why does Google think Andoid is any different?

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[somersault]

Did you even read the summary? They haven't said anything about making sure it's stable (which doesn't mean they haven't done so, before any trolls leap on that), but they have said they're waiting until the devices are released. Probably because they don't want people's first impression of Ice Cream Sandwich to be a barely functional custom ROM with half the drivers missing.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source

[betterunixthanunix]

Most open source projects are released for free, so if users have bad experience with it and stop using it, there's no real impact to the developers.

Except that they lose people who might potentially report minor bugs or even contribute small patches. "Users are developers" is pretty much the central tenet of the open source movement.

On the other hand, if people use half-baked releases of Android and have bad experience, they might switch to other platforms and Google would lose out in terms of profit.

Google could just as easily use trademark laws to accomplish this goal -- that is what Mozilla does, that is what Red Hat does, etc. The problem is that Google's decision makers does not "get" the "open source" concept.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[amRadioHed]

The big question has been, since 'Ice Cream Sandwich', whether it would continue to be closed development/open source, or whether it would go closed entirely, except for a few GPL-obligated kernel bits...

No, that's never been a question for anyone other then the conspiracy minded. Google has been extremely clear and consistent about their reason for not releasing Honeycomb's source and about continuing with the open sourcing of Android as soon as the code base is fixed in ICS.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[q.kontinuum]

Depends. Nokia was considering Android and dumped it, because it was too painful. (Nokia provides a lot of services, especially in the area of location bases services they are competing with Google, and due to their offline navigation software they might pull people away from Google Maps.) Samsung is putting more effort in their Windows Phone devices.

The problem is, branching would be pointless: Android without Android App-store is not competitive. In case of Nokia, a great system was available already and they canceled it because of the lacking ecosystem. For others it will be the same problem.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Nokia, but here I state my personal opinion only. Statements are only made based on public available information.

Re:Is this the same source code?

[brian.swetland]

Yes, the ICS tree that will be released to AOSP is the same code used to do the build for Galaxy Nexus (among other products).

Instructions on building for Galaxy Nexus will likely end up here (alongside Nexus S):
http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html

The handful of closed source userspace pieces necessary (some firmware, the hardware opengl libraries, samsung radio library, etc) will end up here:
http://code.google.com/android/nexus/drivers.html
(please disregard the unfortunate use of "drivers" here -- all the kernel drivers are GPLv2, none are closed source)

What's not included is the Google Mobile Apps (gmail, gcalendar, gtalk, maps, etc). These are proprietary Google applications, not part of the core Android platform (which consists of the lower level libraries, dalvik vm, framework libraries, services, core apps like phone, contacts, launcher, settings, etc, etc).

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then!

[msevior]

Google + android = open source fail.

At least with Apple you generally know where you stand.........(what did I just say!??)

Steve Jobs says:'I'm going to destroy Android': - Jobs declared 'thermonuclear war' on Google

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/im-going-to-destroy-android-jobs-declared-thermonuclear-war-on-google-20111021-1mbaq.html#ixzz1bPhM8NJY

Now the source code to android is open everyone on the planet can get IOS features (and more). We're way ahead because of Google.

No need to be an apologist for Apple. They've got enough cash to keep you in new shiny gadgets for at least 10 years. The rest of us can build and play with linux and android.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[shellbeach]

Nokia was considering Android and dumped it, because it was too painful.

Surely the $1 billion MS paid them to take on WP7 had something to do with it? I think Nokia was a bit silly in eschewing Android, personally ... but then, their previous decisions on phone OSes haven't really inspired confidence in their ability to pick the market.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[q.kontinuum]

Nokia owns Navteq (they sell map data). With focus on Android this asset would be wasted. They provide an offline navigation software. Incidentally I'm working on the location where this software is implemented. This would have been wasted as well. Nokia has a business unit around location based services. This is direct competition to Google and would have been wasted. OTOH, Bing maps is already using Navteq data for some time, MS and Nokia are both cooperating with Yahoo for quite some time, etc. All this is public available information, and I think it is enough reason to turn down Android. So I think it was rather a decision of building the own ecosystem for MeeGo faster or going for WP.

Of course the 1Billion did not hurt either, and I can imagine that Elop did have some good contacts to MS which helped building up the trust for negotiations. But I don't think this was the decisive issue.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development

[drinkypoo]

They've said this from the start, but Open Source means you can get the source, and they're not giving the source, which means that an entire release is not Open Source. Maybe every other version of Android is, but those with those devices are running a non-Open-Source version of Android, period, the end. Clear and consistent? Clearly, consistently, not Open Source, until they release the source, at least to their customers.

Re:I Can't Believe...

[drinkypoo]

Is your intelligence so low that you don't understand that if you can't get the source, it's not Open Source? Google created an entirely not-Open-Source version of Android, and here you are to pat them on the back for it. It's almost like you're some kind of shill, but I suspect you're actually just stupid. You have so much invested in the idea that Google is the Good Witch that you refuse to accept that they have lied, engaged in fraud, et cetera. This isn't Oz and this isn't some naked titty wannabe wicca party, this is the real world, and there is no Good Witch. Just another corporation.