Hacker News Reader

Comment by silvestrov | Hacker News Reader

...Google has made the decision to keep the Honeycomb source code under wraps because it doesn't want hardware vendors to adapt it to run on other form factors where it might not function properly.

This is completely bullshit. If code is really open, it allows everybody to use the code as they see fit, however unfit other users might think it is.

The Apache webserver is really open: I can modify it and use it without any restriction from the Apache Foundation just because they might think my modifications "don't function properly".

View on HN

This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users. If some vendor makes a crappy tablet that runs Android, users will associate that crappiness with the Android trademark because they are unable to tell whose fault it is. There is no similar risk of the Apache trademark being tarnished because some guy sets up a crappy webserver with it.

users will associate that crappiness with the Android trademark

That's a legitimate concern, but it could be fixed by not allowing people to use the Android trademark on hardware that Google deemed crappy.

Yes, exactly like Firefox. This may be after all a good idea.

> "This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users."

No, it doesn't. It insists that "Open" retain some reasonable meaning.

The difference in technical competence is what makes this move understandable and in Google's best interests. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense to continue calling the project "Open".

Honeycomb is closed. The reasons are irrelevant to whether "Open" is an acceptable descriptor. Google may one day make Honeycomb "Open". But that too is irrelevant to whether "Open" is an acceptable descriptor today.

Then Google should control the Android trademark. Firefox is open-source, yet the trademark is strictly controlled.

No it doesn't. The _typical_ apache user doesn't modify the Apache source or even compile it him/herself.

"This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users."

And Google's behavior ignores the spirit of open source, which expects the source to actually be available regardless of whether or not somebody's trademark might look bad.

Lecturing on open source a company that has done more to open source mobile operating systems than any other company in history.

Good times.

I'm not sure the comparison to Apache was able to develop at a time when things were different and was not a project created by a massive for-profit corporation. Particularly given that Apache is not an operating system and does not have to address hardware diversity in the way that Android does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com