It's not an argument that Google shouldn't be allowed to have their closed source apps, or that carriers are taking the open source code and modifying it. I think we all understand why these things happen. The problem is that they take this approach but then want to pass off that closed source stuff as if it were part of their magnanimous open source effort. Either, A, make sure any Android phone can run the Market and Google Sync stuff (not necessarily by even open sourcing it) or B don't advertise that functionality as being a part of Android (like they do now).
A good analogy would be like this. Apple announces tomorrow that they are Open Sourcing OSX as an operating system to smash Windows once and for all. Because it's open source you can port it to any device you want, or add any feature you want, don't want iTunes? You can replace it. All apps created equal, all device drivers created equal! A month from now they open up a repository where you can download BSD. The only people who can actually commit to the Operating System are Apple engineers. They start some forums for interested people to discuss it. When people ask how they can get it to run on their PC systems they say "Download the code and get it to work yourself.". Then people download the code from the repo to get it to work themselves. They then post "Hey? where is the code for Finder? Where is the code for Carbon? Where is the code for iTunes?" It would be absolutely their right to keep all their code private etc. But if they are doing that they should say "we are open sourcing the underpinnings of OSX" etc or somehow make a clear distinction that OSX does not include Finder, or Safari etc as opposed to videos of employees introducing OSX by saying "One of the great features I love about OSX is how easy it is to navigate files using Finder." When Android.com lists the Marketplace as a feature of Android, you'd expect it to be a part of Android. It's a small detail, but the whole open source relationship is very much hurt when they say one thing and do another. The "Why don't you just submit a patch?" mentality found all over the place here doesn't feel very inviting when it looks like if someone did all the work to port Android to some existing handset hardware they wouldn't even be allowed to install all the advertised features of Android. And I very specifically say Android and not the G1. I don't know if others would agree but it just seems like if the PR speak was a bit more inline with reality then perhaps there would be more motivation to keep Android on the open path as well as help keep the community from getting discouraged. -E On Mar 18, 8:32 pm, Eric Mill <[email protected]> wrote: > That's exactly what I'm saying, Disconnect. Android is a completely > open source OS. That's the abstraction. What gets shipped is a > partly-closed source fork of Android. > > Android Market is not a part of the OS; it's an application written > for it. Under what advertising campaign do you see Google implying > that their open source codebase includes the code for Market? The > only marketing Google runs is for the G1, which doesn't mention > anything about being open source (since the G1 isn't). > > That's why everyone should keep their anger directed at the > *carriers*, and not the Android project itself, which is an entirely > free and open source OS that anybody can put on any phone. > > -- Eric > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > > Linux is a bad example here. (BSD is better.) The devices all come with a > > closed-source fork of "android". Try doing that with debian.... > > > The other posters are correct, android is advertised (by google and others) > > as having all of these things built in. (Easy low-hanging fruit: ANDROID > > MARKET....) > > > And its not "a completely open source OS" because -completely- is an > > important word.. there is an open source android OS. Unfortunately, that is > > not what is being shipped -by anyone-. What is being shipped is a closed > > source OS with some example implementations. > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Eric Mill <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Guys, this is ridiculous. Android, like Linux, is a completely open > >> source OS, and we are all running variants of it, with pieces of > >> preinstalled software of varying openness and licenses. All the > >> different RC updates are packaged for a specific client (T-Mobile), > >> for their customer base. > > >> Also, it gets said all the time on this list, but again: the G1 isn't > >> Android. The Android codebase is a pure abstraction, whereas the G1 > >> is a specific implementation of it, and is full of compromises (like a > >> closed-source Market app, and not having root access). The developer > >> phone has far fewer compromises, but even that has at least one (no > >> access to copy-protected paid apps). > > >> If you want a phone with no compromises, start a phone manufacturing > >> company and make one. Thanks to Android, it's a whole lot easier to > >> do exactly that. > > >> -- Eric > > >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Muthu Ramadoss > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Anything not opensource and not part of android must be yanked out of > >> > the > >> > android website and must be part of the particular implemetation like > >> > g1, g2 > >> > etc., > > >> > On Mar 18, 2009 1:30 AM, "Eric Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Well this reasoning has been brought up numerous times but I think it > >> > is quite lame. Visit android.com. More specifically visit > >> >http://www.android.com/about/videos.html#category=peeks > > >> > Here you can see an "Android" phone boasting about features that > >> > AREN'T android. This would be like going to Microsoft's website for > >> > WindowsXP and having it boast about the features of the paid version > >> > of Microsoft Office. > > >> > If they aren't going to make these bits of code a part of Android, > >> > they shouldn't show them off on any OHA or android.com website. They > >> > should only be on T-Mobile's website for why you should buy a G1. And > >> > they shouldn't be bragging about how there isn't a googlephone there > >> > are many googlephones. Since it looks like the hardware doesn't exist > >> > and if it did exist, wouldn't even have the full boasted software > >> > stack. > > >> > They want to eat their cake and have it too. "Android has all these > >> > great features.. They just aren't actually provided" > > >> > On Mar 15, 11:56 am, MrSnowflake <[email protected]> wrote: > > Even > >> > the > >> > open source trees (mas... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
