I guess I'd be interested in seeing a list of criteria by which a project/platform can be defined as open and then having Android marked by those criteria.
I think a lot of discussion here centers around those criteria. Or is the license the beginning and end of that criteria? On Dec 12, 6:43 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, gingerbread hits gold release well before its available on the > repositories. The reason for this is IIRC that while android is open > source, its not developed quite like a standard open source model (i.e. > the development branches aren't shared with the public), and that > getting a new version out the door is more important than cleaning up > the code for public release. That, and this way there's some time for > further internal reviews on security issues. > > Sounds somewhat iffy to me, but I don't see any conspiracy theories > here. I doubt this is an effective measure to hold back android clones > google would rather not see made, for example. > > Also, the notion that all reviewers are google employees sounds like a > non-argument to me. The vast majority of open source projects are set > up so that final decision powers rest with that project's current > leadership, which, if a company is involved, is often run by that > company. Note that 'leadership' costs lots of money and effort, so any > attempt to turn a big project into a community-run concept requires at > the very least an official (probably not-for-profit) legal entity to > manage it, as well as donations aplenty. The mere effort of setting up > such a concept would slow down android development for a while, so I > can see an innocent explanation for this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
