I'm not following the logic here: how is that an answer? Sounds like orthogonal generalities to me. Anders is raising a valid point and FWIW I second it.
Releasing some code snapshots once a while and keeping stuff close to chest does _not_ make a project automagically opensource. I'll stand corrected if Google confirms in this forum that there's no private code in Android. Furthermore, important features (call them "characteristics" rather; say, security) have to be governed by the parent, to use your terminology. Cheers, -HN Disclaimer: opinions stated in this message are those of mine and do _not_ represent those of my employer's. On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Chris Palmer <[email protected]> wrote: > Android is the parent to a whole family of distributions. Open sourcers and > carriers and device manufacturers are all shipping their own robotic > children, often with significant changes. Nothing stops them or you from > developing a plan and a feature different from the parent Android. If the > feature is good and popular enough, it might indeed be merged upstream or > laterally. That's how open source has always worked... > > On Oct 30, 2009 2:35 PM, "Anders Rundgren" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Platform security is not something you can add as a patch, it requires a > plan. > Currently the plan is unknown and will stay so because it is only the > released code that is open in Android. > That doesn't mean that Google or Android are bad, it just means that there > are fairly big limits to what externals can contribute with. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chris Palmer > To: > [email protected]... > > > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 19:49 > Subject: > [android-security-discuss] Re: Enterprise Securit... > > > As an occasional Android insider and a full-time security researcher and > advocate, perhaps I can p... > >
