Comment by dogas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dogas | Hacker News Reader

This article has some incorrect facts.

"Members such as HTC have gone off and added lots of their own software and customizations to their Android devices without contributing any code back to the Alliance"

That's not true. HTC added sense UI on top of android. They are 100% allowed to do that. Android is licenced under the GPL, and HTC came along forked it, and added their own stuff to it, then released the source code (http://developer.htc.com/). The alliance is free to take whatever HTC does and merge it into the android core if they are so inclined.

I'm not buying that carriers and are gaining 100% control of the software. They are legally bound to release the source code. That would have never happened before the open software alliance and android, ergo, the OHA is not "in shambles", and is working as intended.

Carriers are free to charge for whatever services they want to provide. The market should take care of most of that. If sprint wants to charge $30 for tethering, but T-mobile will let you do it for free, then it's advantage T-mobile.

Android is licenced under Apache v2 (not GPL) http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_faq.html

I stand corrected. The net effect is the same however.

No, it isn't. Apache License has no virality. HTC Sense is not open-source (and is not even hinted at anywhere on the website you linked to claiming had the source).

>That's not true. HTC added sense UI on top of android. They are 100% allowed to do that.

Not only are they allowed, they would never have all worked cooperatively to forward Android if they couldn't. However it's in all of their common interest to keep the foundation constant, which is exactly why they've done that.

It's interesting that if you look at the "proof" that the handset alliance is in shambles, you'll find that it actually claims that Google is too forceful with changes, not allowing partners to act too laggardly. Something this troll author twists this into them being a "poor shepherd".

>Carriers are free to charge for whatever services they want to provide. The market should take care of most of that.

It's interesting that Apple, who couples you to AT&T in the US if you want an iPhone ("freedom!"), has a long history of blocking apps that endanger the revenue stream of their carrier partners. Google Voice, for instance. The author of this terrible, inconsistent, poorly supported piece has no consistency and their argument is absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com