On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:46:33 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.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
> > <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> 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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to