> If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes.
IMHO, for a for-profit company, they're doing a really great job of keeping the source open, especially when compared to their competition. And remember how open they are required to be, which is "not at all". They could stop releasing source tomorrow, and, short of feeling morally superior, there is nothing anyone could do about it.
Is Google open by RMS's standards? If we just jump there, we can settle the terminology issue on the spot. No, they are not open, so now we can just work with what we have, which is "some open source under different licenses, and a lot of closed source".
But if someone doesn't like the restrictions on Android, they do have the option to fork it into a new OS. That's the open source deal, and Rubin spelled out the details in a tweet that a great many people made fun of at the time, but turned out to accurately describe their stance. Use the kernel source under the GPL's terms; use the trademark and store and non-GPL'd source under Google's terms.
When Justice gets involved, there are problems, for sure. But saying, "Hey, you can't use our trademark while pimping our main competitor's product, and if you do pimp our main competitor's product, don't expect us to be in a rush to show you our in-progress code" doesn't strike me as particularly horrific behavior. But that's just my opinion.
The big question is: would Android be a coherent platform without Google's restrictions? And if not, would Google even work on it?