Andy Rubin On Android’s Openness: Light On Community, Heavy On Open Source | Hacker News Reader

Andy Rubin On Android’s Openness: Light On Community, Heavy On Open Source

techcrunch.com

27 pointsfredoliveira12 comments

> We make the code open source when the first device is ready.

What I don't understand is this: weren't people upset that 3.0 wasn't (still isn't?) available when the Xoom launched? Did the Xoom not count as the first device? I mean I honestly don't care either way, it just doesn't seem like he addressed the issues I've been hearing about.

That's pretty much the problem. Google has not released the source for Honeycomb, even though the first device is out, and several more are supposed to be launched in the next month.

He's completely sidestepping the issue here. The issue isn't that Google's development is not transparent or community oriented. Android is developed by Google in-house, so it's their decision for when they should release the source. Most of the time, they were fairly prompt about releasing the source(somewhere around 1-2 weeks at most). Those delays are acceptable, because Google probably did a final pass to take out useless comments and other randomness that works it's way into any source tree.

The issue is that Android is supposed to be an Open Source OS, which means that the source should be available if you can get the software. Since Honeycomb hasn't had the source released, it really can't be called that.

There's a difference between launching and being ready.

Hmm, his definition seems to have changed:

https://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429

(it isn't true.)

From second sentence of TFA: In October Android Chief Andy Rubin provided his first definition (links to tweet)

Then: ...Today during a press Q&A at Google I/O, Rubin gave a more detailed explanation...

Sounds like a bunch of newspeak to avoid mentioning the copyright-assignment policy for submitted patches.

Don't the FSF a several other software foundations have similar copyright assignment requirements?

The FSF doesn't intend to relicense your contributions under a non (L)GPL license, so it really isn't necessary as long as your contributions are under that license.

The last time I checked, the FSF still requires submitters to sign a copyright assignment. Their rationale is that it is difficult in the U.S. to file suit for copyright infringement when copyright of a work is not held by one single entity.

Still, there's a world of difference between handing over copyright to a non-profit organization that is chartered to further Free Software, versus handing it over to a for-profit corporation and hoping for the best.

Is it copyright assignment or a contributor license agreement? They're very different. In the former case, you disclaim all rights to your own code. In the latter case, you're making it possible for another entity to relicense your code while retaining your own IP rights over it.

There's already accepted terms for what he's describing, without trying to claim a difference between "open source" and "community driven".

Free Software is software that you are free to run, modify, and redistribute. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The "open source" releases of Android meet this definition (at least until it gets installed on hardware with a locked bootloader).

The OSI's official Open Source Definition aside (which is mostly a bunch of legalese) open source is a development model where different parties contribute code as needed.

(Eric Raymond's the Cathedral and the Bazaar is a decent introduction: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...)

Android never followed an open source development style. Each version was constructed in secret, then released to the public in a complete state.

I would honestly like to see Google switch to a true open source development style, or to see some party with enough influence fork Android and continue development in an open source manner.

I wonder if they're just playing their cards close to their chest until the Oracle lawsuits are done and dusted? If not, then this feels like a bait and switch. I'm sure the open nature of android attracted a lot of attention for them from manufacturers and the initial batch of users alike.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com