Android Open Source Project is not the same Android you get on a phone.
It doesn't matter, you can get the source of Android 2.3, the same that you get on a Nexus phone, the full platform and software stack.
You seem to think I'm talking about carrier or handset maker extensions. I'm not.
Then why did you interject in this discussion if you don't know what we are discussing? Clearly - as you can see from the poster i originally replied to - that is *exactly* what we are talking about, the additions of the manufacturer and how those affect the openness of the underlying software.
Android 3.0's closed nature have absolutely zero impact on whether Linux is open
I never said it did - in fact you are the one that brought up Android 3.0 - i simply suggested the logic that lead him to the claim that Android isn't open - the additional lockdown hardware/software on some Android devices - would lead you to the conclusion that Linux isn't open - like the additional lockdown hardware/software on a TiVo. Obviously that is true in neither case and the additional lockdown hardware/software has no impact on the openness of the underlying software. We were talking solely about manufacturer-added lockdowns before you butted in.
There was a story a little while ago about a guy charging for Blender (which he renamed to something else) but had all the relevant licensing info at the bottom of the page.
Working as a contractor, especially for a startup, is always a risk. You could be out of a job at any moment if things don't go well.
That's no different from being an employee, you wouldn't be much of a contractor if you didn't have a contract.
Seeing as this guy is apparently one of the main people ensuring that things go well, getting a cut of that success doesn't seem like too much to ask.
You can't have it both ways, a cut of the success but no risk of suffering a cut of the failure whilst all the while being paid to do the job you were contracted to do.
If you don't ask, you can't expect them to just hand it to you, even if they think you probably deserve it.
I think there's a strong case to be made that the app store is the one making the copy. It's not even like buying a router from a store with GPL software on it. We don't hold the store liable to redistribute the source code, but they aren't actually making a copy, so they aren't a party to the GPL. If the app store can be said to be making a copy, then they must be held responsible for making the source available.
But isn't there a caveat on that wrt the fact that it's an unmodified copy? If you borrow a CD with a binary built from GPL code and you make a copy of that CD then who is the one that is required to provide the source? You made the copy but that doesn't mean it's you who has to provide the source to yourself. And if you asked me to loan you that CD it would seem pretty anti-freedom if i said i wouldn't give it to you because that would make me liable to provide you the source, surely i could loan you the CD and direct you to the author for the source.
However, the only one with standing to force Google to do this is the author of the software. And by virtue of the fact that they put the software in the app store to begin with, it seems that they are OK with the status quo.
I would say you're probably right there, if the stakeholders don't care then it's likely no problem.
If the owners of a six person company become billionaires and the employees only get their piddly (in comparison) salaries, and NOTHING more for what they accomplished, who's being greedy now?
You're suggesting that if you take no risk, make no investment and get contracting rates you should then also be able to reap the rewards of the people who took the risk, provided the investment and paid you those contractor rates. That is absurd! 'Yeah if it succeeds i want some of the profit, but if it fails i don't want any of the debt'
This means that, since Google is redistributing my.apk, they are responsible for responding to requests for the GPL'd source code, NOT ME. Google can ask me for the source code, and I'll give them a copy, but since they are going to distribute the GPL'd code, the hosting of said GPL'd code for those they distribute to is Google's burden!
That's a good point, but i would suggest that google redistributing the unchanged binary is akin to any hosting provider redistributing the binaries you place on their servers.
We've already been through this with Apple's application repository. The result was that Apple didn't want to distribute GPL'd code anymore.
AFAIK that was wrt the single-device issue of Apple's ToS.
Thanks captain obvious, i never made any claim to the sort and if you're capable of reading my post that would be obvious to you.
The software that is locked down in Android is not "additional", it's Android itself.
No it isn't, compare Android 2.3 on a Nexus to on a Droid, there are additional lockdowns on the Droid the make it necessary to root it, these are not present in the very same version of Android 2.3 on the Nexus.
Android is to Linux similar to what TiVo is to Linux. TiVo is closed, but the Linux kernel is not.
No, because I can grab a copy of Android 2.3 sources with no problem.
No, Android is closed. Or simply just "not open". Show me where the source code for 3.0 is.
Just because you can have a version that is not open doesn't make it entirely closed. The OSX kernel has many BSD components, it doesn't make BSD closed, the source for 2.3, the latest version of Android available for mobile phones is up for you, i'm sure you can find it.
Show me where you can build an official Android handset without meeting Google's rules.
It doesn't need to be 'official', that has absolutely ZERO to do with openness.
There *is* an open version of Android, but no one uses it.
Oh so now Android's closed, except for when it's open. The only closed version of Android is 3.0, the tablet version, not even designed for the VAST majority of Android devices.
It's almost like a TiVo distribution without the TV listings or season pass features, etc.
No it isn't, that's an idiotic comparison that makes no sense.
you can't equate say the Motorola DroidX to the Nexus One just as you can't say Linux is closed just because it's on a TiVo when you can install it on a PC and it's fully open.
No, because this isn't a comparison between a generic Linux OS and a customized, specialized, closed one. They both run a customized, specialized, closed (or "not open") Linux-based OS.
Build a version of Android from sources and you can install it onto a Nexus, try and put it on a DroidX and you'll be hit with additional non-Android lockdowns that prevent it.
So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?
No, that's not what he's saying. Linux, the kernel (which is the extent to which Android can really be called "Linux", and even that is custom), is very open. It's the stuff you heap atop it, and the hardware you run it on, that might not be so open. In the case of Android, the hardware and software are varying degrees of closed.
This is quite similar to TiVo.
If Android is closed by virtue of the hardware and additional lockdown software then so is Linux on which that same kind of hardware and software is present, like in the case of TiVo. So it's not Android that is closed, it's some phone platforms, you can't equate say the Motorola DroidX to the Nexus One just as you can't say Linux is closed just because it's on a TiVo when you can install it on a PC and it's fully open.
If we only have a platform that is open on the theoretical level - if users have to root a phone (something most people will never do) for it to be open, if making your phone open entails giving up other features, if manufacturers are actively hostile to people doing this and attempt to install countermeasures to rooting and sideloading...is this really "open"?
So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?
It's the cheering from the Google crowd, over the fact that they have managed to derail other non-Google, truly open projects in favor of theirs
They haven't derailed anything. The beauty of open source is that if it's worth continuing development on then that is what will happen, if Meego fails then all it proves is that it wasn't good enough.
But on a moment's notice, everything but a handful of packages in Android could be closed up as tight as iOS whereas MeeGo cannot.
The core os uses the licenses of upstream projects (which aren't all copyleft licenses) and UX components are generally permissive OSS licenses. In any case the idea that it couldn't be 'closed up' is silly anyway, in both projects the open source code exists, if either project turned to proprietary replacements for those open components (be it different software or a proprietary fork) it's likely development of those open components would continue via OSS forks anyway.
the difference is the term "grocery" has been in use for many many years.
that's not a difference at all, the term "app" has been used for many many years, long before Apple used it. Just because you didn't know that doesn't make it true.
So Linux is a windows? OSX is a windows? Irix is windows? Windows is windows? No, they are all operating systems. Just as the Apple that makes iDevices is a company, not a kind of fruit.
Just because it's a generic word doesn't make it invalid, it's about what that word is used to refer to. Windows refers to an 'operating system' or 'window manager', not a 'windows'. Unlike 'App Store' which refers to an 'app store'.
Slashdot Mirror
Android Open Source Project is not the same Android you get on a phone.
It doesn't matter, you can get the source of Android 2.3, the same that you get on a Nexus phone, the full platform and software stack.
You seem to think I'm talking about carrier or handset maker extensions. I'm not.
Then why did you interject in this discussion if you don't know what we are discussing? Clearly - as you can see from the poster i originally replied to - that is *exactly* what we are talking about, the additions of the manufacturer and how those affect the openness of the underlying software.
Android 3.0's closed nature have absolutely zero impact on whether Linux is open
I never said it did - in fact you are the one that brought up Android 3.0 - i simply suggested the logic that lead him to the claim that Android isn't open - the additional lockdown hardware/software on some Android devices - would lead you to the conclusion that Linux isn't open - like the additional lockdown hardware/software on a TiVo. Obviously that is true in neither case and the additional lockdown hardware/software has no impact on the openness of the underlying software. We were talking solely about manufacturer-added lockdowns before you butted in.
There was a story a little while ago about a guy charging for Blender (which he renamed to something else) but had all the relevant licensing info at the bottom of the page.
Working as a contractor, especially for a startup, is always a risk. You could be out of a job at any moment if things don't go well.
That's no different from being an employee, you wouldn't be much of a contractor if you didn't have a contract.
Seeing as this guy is apparently one of the main people ensuring that things go well, getting a cut of that success doesn't seem like too much to ask.
You can't have it both ways, a cut of the success but no risk of suffering a cut of the failure whilst all the while being paid to do the job you were contracted to do.
If you don't ask, you can't expect them to just hand it to you, even if they think you probably deserve it.
No harm in asking.
I think there's a strong case to be made that the app store is the one making the copy. It's not even like buying a router from a store with GPL software on it. We don't hold the store liable to redistribute the source code, but they aren't actually making a copy, so they aren't a party to the GPL. If the app store can be said to be making a copy, then they must be held responsible for making the source available.
But isn't there a caveat on that wrt the fact that it's an unmodified copy?
If you borrow a CD with a binary built from GPL code and you make a copy of that CD then who is the one that is required to provide the source? You made the copy but that doesn't mean it's you who has to provide the source to yourself. And if you asked me to loan you that CD it would seem pretty anti-freedom if i said i wouldn't give it to you because that would make me liable to provide you the source, surely i could loan you the CD and direct you to the author for the source.
However, the only one with standing to force Google to do this is the author of the software. And by virtue of the fact that they put the software in the app store to begin with, it seems that they are OK with the status quo.
I would say you're probably right there, if the stakeholders don't care then it's likely no problem.
nah it's 1/2 as good but four times as much ;)
If the owners of a six person company become billionaires and the employees only get their piddly (in comparison) salaries, and NOTHING more for what they accomplished, who's being greedy now?
You're suggesting that if you take no risk, make no investment and get contracting rates you should then also be able to reap the rewards of the people who took the risk, provided the investment and paid you those contractor rates. That is absurd! 'Yeah if it succeeds i want some of the profit, but if it fails i don't want any of the debt'
This means that, since Google is redistributing my .apk, they are responsible for responding to requests for the GPL'd source code, NOT ME. Google can ask me for the source code, and I'll give them a copy, but since they are going to distribute the GPL'd code, the hosting of said GPL'd code for those they distribute to is Google's burden!
That's a good point, but i would suggest that google redistributing the unchanged binary is akin to any hosting provider redistributing the binaries you place on their servers.
We've already been through this with Apple's application repository. The result was that Apple didn't want to distribute GPL'd code anymore.
AFAIK that was wrt the single-device issue of Apple's ToS.
are you sure you aren't thinking of XXXX?
Android is not Linux.
Thanks captain obvious, i never made any claim to the sort and if you're capable of reading my post that would be obvious to you.
The software that is locked down in Android is not "additional", it's Android itself.
No it isn't, compare Android 2.3 on a Nexus to on a Droid, there are additional lockdowns on the Droid the make it necessary to root it, these are not present in the very same version of Android 2.3 on the Nexus.
Android is to Linux similar to what TiVo is to Linux. TiVo is closed, but the Linux kernel is not.
No, because I can grab a copy of Android 2.3 sources with no problem.
No, Android is closed. Or simply just "not open". Show me where the source code for 3.0 is.
Just because you can have a version that is not open doesn't make it entirely closed. The OSX kernel has many BSD components, it doesn't make BSD closed, the source for 2.3, the latest version of Android available for mobile phones is up for you, i'm sure you can find it.
Show me where you can build an official Android handset without meeting Google's rules.
It doesn't need to be 'official', that has absolutely ZERO to do with openness.
There *is* an open version of Android, but no one uses it.
Oh so now Android's closed, except for when it's open. The only closed version of Android is 3.0, the tablet version, not even designed for the VAST majority of Android devices.
It's almost like a TiVo distribution without the TV listings or season pass features, etc.
No it isn't, that's an idiotic comparison that makes no sense.
you can't equate say the Motorola DroidX to the Nexus One just as you can't say Linux is closed just because it's on a TiVo when you can install it on a PC and it's fully open.
No, because this isn't a comparison between a generic Linux OS and a customized, specialized, closed one. They both run a customized, specialized, closed (or "not open") Linux-based OS.
Build a version of Android from sources and you can install it onto a Nexus, try and put it on a DroidX and you'll be hit with additional non-Android lockdowns that prevent it.
The description for it on the market said, "DON'T PAY ANY OF THESE CLOWNS FOR SELLING YOU GPL CODE!"
But you're allowed to sell software that uses GPL code.
I just realised I didn't clarify that the ASL doesn't require source code release at all.
Fact 1: GPL requires source code to be released. Fact 2: License does not specify when it has to be released.
The GPL does specify when the code has to be released, it's just the ASL that doesn't.
So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?
No, that's not what he's saying. Linux, the kernel (which is the extent to which Android can really be called "Linux", and even that is custom), is very open. It's the stuff you heap atop it, and the hardware you run it on, that might not be so open. In the case of Android, the hardware and software are varying degrees of closed.
This is quite similar to TiVo.
If Android is closed by virtue of the hardware and additional lockdown software then so is Linux on which that same kind of hardware and software is present, like in the case of TiVo. So it's not Android that is closed, it's some phone platforms, you can't equate say the Motorola DroidX to the Nexus One just as you can't say Linux is closed just because it's on a TiVo when you can install it on a PC and it's fully open.
Updating the OS. Particularly to a custom version.
That IS the banner feature of "open" Android, isn't it?
Pretty sure you don't have to do that with the Nexus.
- Must root to be able to use important features
like what?
If we only have a platform that is open on the theoretical level - if users have to root a phone (something most people will never do) for it to be open, if making your phone open entails giving up other features, if manufacturers are actively hostile to people doing this and attempt to install countermeasures to rooting and sideloading...is this really "open"?
So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?
Wasn't Android supposed to be open?
The issue isn't with the OS, it's with the store which has to deal with the movie studios supplying the store.
It's the cheering from the Google crowd, over the fact that they have managed to derail other non-Google, truly open projects in favor of theirs
They haven't derailed anything. The beauty of open source is that if it's worth continuing development on then that is what will happen, if Meego fails then all it proves is that it wasn't good enough.
But on a moment's notice, everything but a handful of packages in Android could be closed up as tight as iOS whereas MeeGo cannot.
The core os uses the licenses of upstream projects (which aren't all copyleft licenses) and UX components are generally permissive OSS licenses.
In any case the idea that it couldn't be 'closed up' is silly anyway, in both projects the open source code exists, if either project turned to proprietary replacements for those open components (be it different software or a proprietary fork) it's likely development of those open components would continue via OSS forks anyway.
why? MS doesn't have any trademarks for any product that is the GUI element called a 'window'.
the difference is the term "grocery" has been in use for many many years.
that's not a difference at all, the term "app" has been used for many many years, long before Apple used it. Just because you didn't know that doesn't make it true.
Microsoft can register "Windows", etc.
So Linux is a windows? OSX is a windows? Irix is windows? Windows is windows? No, they are all operating systems. Just as the Apple that makes iDevices is a company, not a kind of fruit.
How not so? What do you call those rectangular shaped floating things where the programs run?
Are you just being obtuse? That's not what Microsoft's 'Windows' is, in the same way that the company Apple is not a fruit.
The same should then hold for e.g. Windows.
Just because it's a generic word doesn't make it invalid, it's about what that word is used to refer to. Windows refers to an 'operating system' or 'window manager', not a 'windows'. Unlike 'App Store' which refers to an 'app store'.
Apple wants to make sure that no other company calls there store an "app store".
But steve jobs himself called android's store an "app store".