On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:46:33 +0000 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 11:35:54 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 +0000 > > Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce > > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > >> This is the model used by Android, the most successful open > >> source project ever > > i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has > > nothing to do with android popularity. > > I can assure you that it's _the_ reason it took off so much. If > the Android project had insisted on pure open source, the > hardware and smartphone vendors would have laughed at them and > used Windows Mobile or LiMo or one of the myriad other > alternatives at the time. > > It's why Samsung has their own proprietary multi-window > implementation for Android and Amazon and Xiaomi forked Android > and released their own proprietary versions. Commercial vendors > want to differentiate with their own proprietary features, but > AOSP provides a common OSS platform on which they can work > together. > > This model has been extraordinarily successful for AOSP, as it > has led to a billion smartphones running some version of Android > and capable of running most common apps, albeit with some > fragmentation too. what you described here is a matter of licensing (BSDL vs GPL), not having some closed-source patches.
Description: PGP signature