Google admits Android 'both open and closed'
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
I am fairly sure they did have qualms [1], and that is exactly why Google is doing this now.
1: http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobil...
I find the 'heat' over this topic (as measured by column inches of ongoing debate) fascinating. I used the McNealy quote above because when I joined Sun in 1986 they had just gone public and they were championing "Open Systems."
As a concept this was pretty easy to explain, basically everything you needed to know in order to reproduce an equivalently functioning system was documented and unencumbered so that folks could create 'Sun compatible' Hard disks (Fujitsu Eagles were very popular) without paying a 'tax' to Sun. It also meant that as a company considering a significant investment in the technology, if Sun vanished tomorrow you had enough information to keep all your Sun gear running and third parties could continue to support it an create new peripherals for it, Etc. Eric Schmidt's first "real" management job was when he joined Sun and started heading up the systems group.
The 'open systems' tactic relies on the incumbent player staying 'closed' to protect their turf for as long as possible, and it makes the alternative credible for people who are putting investment capital at risk. In Sun's case it was getting big players to bet on an untested OS (SunOS) and in Google's case it was getting big players to bet on an untested phone OS (Android).
Had Google abandoned Android 1.6 and walked away, all the players at the time who were using it would have been able to still fix bugs and keep shipping handsets based on it without support from the big G.
Now Android is the 'dominant' smartphone OS (in terms of volume) at least, and there are lots of signs that Google is changing the model to 'closed' to protect its turf, just as Sun closed ranks around Solaris and its own CPU architecture (SPARC). But there is a problem, in that the dominant tablet OS is not Android. So for that market one might want to still be playing the 'open' card, but if its the same as the phone OS then we play the 'closed' card, and we end up with 'both open and closed.'
Google clearly wants Android to be successful. Whether or not you and I can get some, all, or none of the source is no doubt measured against that razor. It is impolitic of them to say to your face, "Look if you're not going to be making a million units a month we really don't care a whole lot what you think we should or should not be doing." but I am sure that if lying had not been invented that is exactly what they would say.
Google makes money, lots of it, and even when these conversations happen inside the 'plex there is the reality that leaving money on the table is never a long term strategy. Just like that free toaster for opening a checking account isn't really free.
I'll predict here today (and where perhaps Google's web crawler will be able to find it again in 5 years) that by 2016 it will be impossible to reload software on your phone if the original phone came with Goggle software but isn't sold by Google, whether they call it 'Android' or something else. Vendors will pay more to have the ability to limit your choices, Google will give them that capability to get paid more, the vendors will use that capability to limit your choices.
One needs to be careful not to mix terms. Android is "open source" but that's as far as they go. It's not Free Software and the development process is not collaborative.
I'm not saying that this is the wrong way to go about it...were I a Google exec and responsible to shareholders, I would have difficulty justifying a truly open process. But at this point, "open" has become a bullet point on a product box to attract a certain demographic.
The GPL requires that sort of thing, most other open source licenses do not. The Apache license covers what you can do with the source when it has been given to you.
> I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source.
Microsoft could release the source code to Windows tomorrow but say you have no right to modify it or distribute the modifications. Just because you've been given the source doesn't mean it's open source. Furthermore, if you haven't been given the source, there isn't anything to say about it. In this case, you are not entitled to the source just because you have the binary.
The GPL requires that sort of thing
If you accompany your binary release with a "written offer", you can actually postpone the source release. The GPL doesn't give a deadline either.
People are trying to make this a licensing issue, when it definitely it is not.
You can always fork Android, and Google cannot sue you for patent infringement (courtesy of the Apache license). The problem then is that the fish doesn't come free anymore -- which is the main gripe of people (i.e. the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open).
As for the "users cannot do whatever they want with their devices" -- they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?). If openness is really what people need, open devices will win because it is a free market (the Nexus S is doing well in my country btw).
I agree. In fact, that was my original argument.
> the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open.
I don't actually care if the development is not done in the open. What I actually care about is being ability to modify and install alternative versions of the software on my devices. I have had to throw away a lot of perfectly good hardware because the software was old and outdated with no way to update it. I've also had to deal with bugs with no way to fix them. Of course, none of this is Google's problem because they don't make the hardware.
> they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?).
The purpose of Free Software to build hardware? I think you've got something wrong there. As a programmer, I don't build hardware. I build software.
> If openness is really what people need, open devices will win
No, because most people are not programmers (or highly technical) and therefore have no need or ability to run alternative software. So no, openness will not win out. This appeal to the masses is not a good argument.
The purpose of Free Software to build hardware?
A valid point nonetheless. Search for any of RMS's talks and he'll bring this point up.
No, because most people are not programmers
Which is effectively impossible if the device running the software is locked down! Android, as Free Software, could be made effectively meaningless if I'm not able to tinker with that very software installed on my device. The FSF agrees, hence the GPL3. Telling me to make my own hardware, exactly what you said, doesn't help me at all.
The FSF considers the Apache license to be free software (and GPLv3 compatible) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
The typical Android end user is not running
free software
If that's not a reasonable advantage and you still depend on the goodwill of the parent company for future versions -- then you're basically saying that open-source / free-software licenses are useless.
Which is not true, as there are examples of famous forks available -- see XFree86 / Xorg; although forks don't happen so often because they take a lot of resources and energy, and there has to be enough incentive for a fork to survive.
""" If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind ... [GPL.v3] crimps the style of mad scientists everywhere by also putting restrictions on the use of the source code. You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version """
Why do you assume that TiVo "exploited" a "weakness", when the software authors of prominent GPLv.2 projects (or other licenses that allow "tivoization") don't think that's the case?
What did TiVo did so awful to call it an exploit and market a derogative term after them, trashing their brand?
What "exploit" is there when you can make your own phones with Android's software on it?
If you, as a software author (working hard on your software) do not want YOUR software to be used in the way TiVo did, then GPL.v3 is fine and has its place in the world certainly, but other than that, what the hell are people smoking?
Also, Linus' opinion represents that of the majority of core kernel contributers. This can be checked, based on their mailing list, and based on the growing list of companies sponsoring its development.
why you think the FSF's position is ambiguous
My problem is with all the other people that suddenly discover the virtues of Free Software and consider it within their right to trash other people's work. Unfortunately being negative on the Internet is far too easy. Meritocracy doesn't work. The FSF has the right to bitch and moan about open-source versus free-software. Most other people do not.
All I'm saying -- it depends on who's perspective you're relying on, and since when talking about TiVo you're mostly talking about the Linux kernel, I gave it as a shining example of a project who's main founder disagrees.
The part about Torvald ... he merely tolerates it
That said I completely agree that Motorola are assholes.
But you cannot change their behavior, unless you're going to do it by means of healthy competition -- simply because if Android were to impose stricter rules on locking, Motorola wouldn't have joined the party, and I'm pretty sure they are still skeptical about their choice ;-)
Imagine if Android somehow becomes the standard, just as Windows, but for mobile phones. And that you can run your apps on every phone, and thus have no vendor lock-in (like people have with iOS for example) -- the truth of the matter is that software is much more bigger than hardware, and mobile phones themselves will be a complementary to software (just as PCs currently are).
In this instance do you think Motorola will afford to lose market share to smaller, more open manufacturers that will be dying to grab a chunk of the market by any means necessary?
Which it the reason they probably are trying to do lock-in now, when the market is unprepared for it -- you're witnessing a land-grab. Apple does it too -- the more they shove on their customer's necks, the more they'll have in the future when competition will be stronger.
The important part of this story is that other manufacturers will be able to join the game, and unless something is yet to unfold, this is precisely what Google wants, as it is in their best interest. Not only that but they are putting pressure on it by releasing unjailed devices like Nexus S.
Have some faith in humanity dude :-) Software is a relatively new field versus all the others.
At the very least you should have your own coherent version of what "open" or "free" means for you, and that Android breaks, instead of putting "shenanigans" in quotes.
Even if AOSP (Android Open Source Project) was GPL licensed, Google owns the copyright. Which means they can still make early releases to vendors (like Motorola for the Xoom) under a different license, and then make the public AOSP release under an OSS license later.
This is no different from Trolltech's former model with Qt, or the dozens of other free software libraries where the developer makes some extra money from non-GPL Licensing on the side.
The point is that Android 2.3 is Free Software, even if Android 3.0 is not Free Software yet. Google can't do anything to take back 2.3 now, it has freed it.
<Speculation> I'd be very surprised if Motorola got Android 3.0 for the Xoom under any OSS license. I imagine it would have been given to them under a special proprietary NDA-equipped license, or maybe even only licensed as a binary. </Speculation>
Does Google own the copyright to contributed code? I assume the Android project contains patches from outside developers and they don't require copyright to be assigned to Google.
I guess in my hypothetical scenario, they could relicense them as GPL but then they'd have redistribution requirements via GPL virality - at least for those bits.
Or they'd need to restructure their parts of the project around them to avoid the viral aspect, like they have for the Linux kernel.
I guess my point is more that not every part of every Free Software project is always released to the public under that license. "Android 3.0 is not Free Software yet, but will be" is not that different to other common OSS project scenarios.
To be completely 110% "open" you'd GPL (or even AGPL) and not ask for assignment, which would level the playing field for everyone. But it's not common for business sponsored projects, or required to be Free Software. And again, even RMS accepts that there are strategic reasons to use non-copyleft licences for e.g. audio and video codecs as widespread adoption of proprietary alternatives would harm Free Software.
What definition of FS are you using? Could you clarify which of the four freedoms [0] Android infringes on?
On the other hand, terms like "open source" and "free software" have absolutely nothing to do with the development process / collaboration model; they only have to do with end-user or redistribution licenses.
Also, the Apache license is stronger than GPL.v2 in the "free software" sense -- it's a lot easier to restrict GPL.v2 software redistribution by means of patents.
One needs to be careful not to mix terms.
Does that decision benefit their partners and hurt others? Yes. And if you want to argue holding the code back was a business move and not a quality issue, that's fair, but it's the one card they can play to ensure high-quality devices in the market.
As an Android user, I say let them keep it.
If the code is good enough to go in production devices, why isn't it good enough to be released to the public?
It's quite easy to create a code base that mostly works well, but whose structure and organization is utterly unsuitable for a public release. This is especially true when you have a marketing-driven deadline (e.g. "ship before the iPad 2") and have to take shortcuts.
The quote from Savoia and Copeland in the article seems to be saying that Google won't release the code until the product sees market in order to maintain their competitive advantage. That's one thing. But when they continue to sit on the code when the product is out, that's another thing entirely.
They have said it's not suitable for phones, apparently Honeycomb and Gingerbread were divergent forks that need to be merged rather than simply building on top of each other linearly.
To me it looks like they chose to be a little protective of their ideas, features etc in honeycomb. Nothing necessarily bad with it. AAPL and MSFT do it all the time but what is sad is that they do it while posing as a good citizen in open source world.
That would only make things worse. Fragmentation is caused by the incompetence and/or malice of manufacturers and carriers, and they're going to have the source regardless of whether it's publicly available. All closing the source would do is shut down projects like CyanogenMod, which reduce fragmentation by bringing current Android versions to more devices.
Is Google violating the GPL by not releasing code that is shipping on devices (eg. Xoom). Didn't Tivo end up having to give up some of there code because it was based on linux? Is this a similar situation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Lice...
[Google] has every right to restrict what its Android partners can and can't do
Maybe legally they do, but morally. Not at all. I don't think they do have every right at all. They promised an open source platform and then started close sourcing the updates to force partners to use their code in a particular way. Doesn't sounds one bit open source to me.
I bet some manufacturers are starting to feel worried and very, very stupid right now. They've given up their own development efforts and found out they've sold their soul and their future to a wolf in sheep's clothing.
At least Nokia did it with eyes open.