The only people this limits "openness" for is device manufactures, which most developers would probably consider a good thing.
So I should be able to download and view the source code to Honeycomb, right?
Is the goal to be open, or just more open than Apple? As I'm sure you know, they're not the same thing.
Instead of being an open platform, we're apparently devolving into specifying particular degrees of openness. If you want to play that game, the Darwin operating system that provides the foundation of iOS is also open source, and it doesn't require a license to use or approval from Apple over modifications.
> A developer can actually view the Android source code
No, Google is withholding Honeycomb's source code for the indefinite future--unless you're lucky enough to be one of Google's privileged partners.
Your post is another example of the justifications we often see from Android supporters for behaviors that Apple has been criticized for in the past, such as withholding source code and holding final approval over third-party development. Google declared pretty loudly that Android exists to prevent a "draconian future" of strict control. However, Google is now exerting aspects of that control.
Openness for developers/users and openness for vendors are, as it turns out, almost mutually exclusive.
Google's taking my side. Finally.
The issue is surely that something is open or it isn't? The minute that Google start closing off or controlling bits of it, don't you have to ask yourself whether the thing you care about is next and therefore whether it's actually open or just probably open?
And for me probably open isn't really open enough.