What's wrong with that tweet? It fits the definition of open source that your parent post described.
I think a lot of people's problem comes from Google having not yet released the Honeycomb source code. It's one thing to say you're open source, provide all your source for each release, but develop in private. It's another thing to say you're open source, develop in private, and not release the source code to your released software.
Except the fact that it tries to define "open" and not "open source". For me, Mozilla Firefox or Ubuntu are open. All development, the planning etc. can be viewed at at all time. All parts of the full stack are open and free. You can participate if you want.
Android can be forked and inspected, which are the fine things about open source, but it cannot be followed like you can with "open" software.
Thank you for a lesson in an obvious topic, and incidentally thats why I wrote "For me", and not "For everyone".
But lets put it in another way: its hard to argue that all aspects of Android are 'open' while its easy to argue that some of them are definitely 'closed'. Whether that sums up to a "open" or "closed" verdict is not up to me. For me it sums up as being somewhere in the grey area, more to the "closed" side after the Honeycomb incident.
Comments
What's wrong with that tweet? It fits the definition of open source that your parent post described.
I think a lot of people's problem comes from Google having not yet released the Honeycomb source code. It's one thing to say you're open source, provide all your source for each release, but develop in private. It's another thing to say you're open source, develop in private, and not release the source code to your released software.
Except the fact that it tries to define "open" and not "open source". For me, Mozilla Firefox or Ubuntu are open. All development, the planning etc. can be viewed at at all time. All parts of the full stack are open and free. You can participate if you want.
Android can be forked and inspected, which are the fine things about open source, but it cannot be followed like you can with "open" software.
Everybody has a different definition of open.
Thank you for a lesson in an obvious topic, and incidentally thats why I wrote "For me", and not "For everyone".
But lets put it in another way: its hard to argue that all aspects of Android are 'open' while its easy to argue that some of them are definitely 'closed'. Whether that sums up to a "open" or "closed" verdict is not up to me. For me it sums up as being somewhere in the grey area, more to the "closed" side after the Honeycomb incident.