Related
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code. Not only is it completely NOT in the spirit of open source, but in fact may even be illegal (although I have not done quite enough research to say exactly what is and isn't GPL, I know the kernel IS GPL, the OS itself I am GUESSING is GPL as they have claimed it to be open source). I understand that certain APPLICATIONS are not open source (market, youtube, gmail, etc) but if the operating system is supposed to be open source (and/or GPL) why are more people not outraged that they will not release it?
I understand they want to prevent every fly-by-night operation from building garbage tablets that "cheapen" the name of android tablets, but for better or worse that's what android is, and it's what makes android great. If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb. If you're not happy with the performance, you can go buy a nice xoom or transformer.
I know we all love android, and its open source nature, but just because we hate apple/M$ doesn't mean we have to love every action google takes.
compuw22c said:
If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the nook has honeycomb.
austin420 said:
the nook has honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
lynyrd65 said:
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, prerelease sdk too. Personally, I think this may be what pushed Google to do what they did. That or Motorola freaking out saying "You PROMISED we'd be first, we invested time and energy here you better do something about this". Android was supposed to be "The People's OS". Unfortunately things seem to be changing hands and its becoming more about keeping carriers and manufacturers happy. Not necessary I say. Pandora's box has been opened, no matter what google does, carriers and manufacturers will still use Android. To stop carrying android phones would be suicide on their part. Give us all root access as part of stock android and be done with it!
Sent from my pocket rocket
compuw22c said:
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
mkasick said:
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources.
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
jnadke said:
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I do understand what a kernel is and what it does (small main-brain controller of hardware, usually with a few modules built into it). I've recompiled mine on my media server a few times. I do see your point though, you're right, not much you can do with it all by itself for sure.
I also understand that they aren't breaking the law, I guess I just thought part of the gpl was that to use gpl software in a project, that project must also comply (which I now understand is false). Always assumed that to be the reason Apple uses a UNIX kernel rather than a LINUX kernel for osx.
So I guess they do have a right to do what they're doing, but the idealist in me still wishes they'd do the right thing...
Anyone wanna make a Ubuntu port to phones...complete with dialer, launcher, dalvik vm (for running android apps)? j/k
Sent from my pocket rocket
mkasick said:
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said...
Help support autism awareness,it only takes 2 seconds to help make a difference...
http://picketfenceblogs.com/vote/3616
I don't understand how if Android is Opensource and borrows code from Linux kernel and other OpenSource projects, how Google can legally hold back the honeycomb sourcecode?
I'm not really interested in Honeycomb source myself, nor the OS dev scene, but what I DO care about, is that some of my favorite apps are broken on my Tablet, and the developers all point the finger at Google, saying the flash API changed in Honeycomb, and they need the source to get it working.
The biggest broken apps for me are:
Opera Mobile 11
BBC iPlayer App
Opera even come out and tell us why Flash does not work on Opera Mobile 11 on Honeycomb:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.opera.browser&feature=search_result
(What's New Tab)
"Flash not supported on Android 3.x due to Google not releasing necessary platform code"
"Open source" doesn't mean what you think it means.
The Linux kernel source is available under the GPLv2, this mean that is you ship a product you must provide the source, hence its the device manufacturers responsibility to give us the kernel source because it's them we buy the product from.
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
All the API's that people _should_ be using are documented, the problem is that the products you mention are trying to mimic the native browser and use internal only method calls, if you step out of the approved API box then you have problems like this.
Why BBC iPlayer needs flash I don't know, all 3.1 tablets can play the flashhigh and flashhd (h.264) iPlayer streams natively I use get-iplayer and transfer the files to my Transformer for viewing and it works beautifully. I guess the Android app team are just lazy (or iPhone developers who don't know Android very well)
SilentMobius said:
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
brunes said:
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
seshmaru said:
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
foxmeister said:
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's correct that it is not copyleft, and I was aware of this. All android releases however are released under the Apache license, which means the source for android itself has to be there, but any further modifications can use whatever they want. So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
seshmaru said:
So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they don't! That is the *whole* point. Honeycomb, at this point in time, is *not* an open source project because no source has been released, and the license of its antecedents is not a copyleft licence.
Honeycomb is, broadly speaking, a derivative of an earlier Android build (Froyo/Gingerbread whatever), and in this respect it is no different to say HTC's Sense builds which are also not open source.
Regards,
Dave
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Have also wondered this myself.. but reading all of this has made me more confused than I was before.. who's right? :S
It's correct that Google hold the copyright for the bulk of the android framework, and as the copyright owners they are not subject to license terms, so they don't need to release anything but that only works for Google products. If the licence had been GPL then manufacturers would need to supply source with their products, not Google but ASUS/Samsung/HTC/etc/etc.
Short version: Google don't need to release anything, app developers shouldn't use internal APIs and rely on having platform source to make things work.
That said I want to change some of the browser behaviour and plumb back in handling for the .mkv file extension (because the container parsing is already in there) So I'd love to get my hands on the HC source, no matter how messy.
david279 said:
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Divine_Madcat said:
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually they did worry, that's exactly why they made honeycomb you derptard and exactly the reason they aren't releasing the source to honeycomb.
And yes they don't want manufacturers shoehorning a tablet OS into a phone just so they can say OH OUR PHONE HAS ANDROID 3.0 INSTEAD OF 2.3.
Derptard... certainly a new one for the books. haha
NOTE: These drivers CAN NOT BE INSTALLED! These drivers were also NOT used by the Cyanogen Team for porting purposes as by using these drivers, you would not be able to use webOS. I am only posting these drivers as evidence, and for research/educational purposes, and it is in the DEVELOPMENT category as such.
Greetings,
This morning's news article here on XDA revealed some newly released information regarding the fact that HP actually installs Android on every Touchpad device during the manufacturing for testing purposes, and that the recent devices brought to light that were bought preinstalled with Android 2.2 were devices that for some reason were not flashed with webOS after the testing process. Now that the Cyanogen Team has officially released the alpha for CM7.1 for the Touchpad, and the news of HP's doings with the Touchpad has come to light, I feel that I should release this.
In late August, multiple people who were working on porting Android to the HP Touchpad were sent an anonymous email containing a zip (attached) which contained a copy of an email, along with Android touchscreen drivers. Based on the contents of the email, and other information we had collected, we determined that the email was from a Cypress Semiconductors employee, and we presumed that it was leaked to us by a Cypress or possibly HP insider. Our presumptions were even more reinforced once we examined the source code of the drivers that was included, which was VERY advanced as it was much more accurate than the webOS Touchscreen drivers that was shipped with the device. From this, we have determined that most likely these drivers were used for testing the hardware during the manufacturing process, as stated in the email.
You may ask why does this matter... the fact is that HP has continued to deny that they do not have any Android build for the Touchpad and they are not responsible for the devices shipped with Android 2.2. While I am almost positive that HP did not have the intent to distribute these devices, the fact is that they did get out... and they were not just found in a dumpster, or it somehow "got legs and walked out of the factory"... HP sold these devices. They first sold them to retailers (Best Buy and Walmart), and at least three of these were confirmed to have been sold to consumers (with a possible fourth device being investigated by us today). So although HP did not intentionally release these devices, these devices have been sold at retail stores in different parts of the US... and HP still has not released the kernel source code.
The GNU General Public License is the license that the Linux Kernel is under, and thus all derivatives must be licensed under... including webOS and Android. Basically, the GPL requires that any changes made to a the Linux kernel source code must be re released to anyone requesting it if whatever it is that uses that kernel is released to the public... regardless of intention. We know that HP released these devices, and we know that HP uses Android for testing of the devices, and that they are violating the GPL by not releasing the kernel source code.
Anyways, what you have all been waiting for... Here is a copy of the attachment sent to us anonymously by the presumed Cypress/HP insider. http://trsohmers.com/files/touchpad/CY8CTMA395_Android_Drivers.zip
Just got finished with the conference and really looking forward for ics to come to the iconia. Did anyone else watch it? Comments, and the samsung nexus also looks amazing
Looks awesome - can't wait for some of the good people here to get this ready for the Iconia A500. I'd do it myself but I have zero ability here
I'm guessing that Ice Cream Sandwich will be running on my Iconia long before my Desire HD!
Yeah I hope it comes soon but it probably wont be here until like mid November I think
It all depends on when Google release the source. the reason why we had to wait so long on the honeycomb builds were because honeycomb was kept (and will keep) closed source through its whole lifecycle.
with ICS, the source is released, there will be SDK available for it, and we can get AOSP base roms for it. so instead of having to wait for an OEM like Acer to ready a rom that we can base custom roms off, we dont have to wait at all.
dev(s) work out the drivers on their own and they can release AOSP roms in some cases well before the oems
unless i have it all wrong of course :S
qwertylesh said:
It all depends on when Google release the source. the reason why we had to wait so long on the honeycomb builds were because honeycomb was kept (and will keep) closed source through its whole lifecycle.
with ICS, the source is released, there will be SDK available for it, and we can get AOSP base roms for it. so instead of having to wait for an OEM like Acer to ready a rom that we can base custom roms off, we dont have to wait at all.
dev(s) work out the drivers on their own and they can release AOSP roms in some cases well before the oems
unless i have it all wrong of course :S
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well are AOSP roms any good, are they just like any other rom, but of course the acer update would be the best and would mostly be bug free but would take awhile to get here
Hasn't the source code already been released? I remember reading on Slashgear that the SDK is released. Or is that not the same thing...? Sorry for my noobiness.
There shouldn't be much Acer need to do, seeing as our tabs are pretty much stock anyway... Acer will probably take about a month once the proper source code drops, but there will be custom ROMs within a few days.
where can we find this conference?
As a motorola user (milestone, so locked boot loader and its just rubbish) I'm still quite skeptical about if ICS will be ported to the A500. Anyone heard anything about it happening?
masands said:
Hasn't the source code already been released? I remember reading on Slashgear that the SDK is released. Or is that not the same thing...? Sorry for my noobiness.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, SDK is development kit, not (complete) system's source code, but just a precompiled binaries and header files.
Consider yourself: Google did release Android 3.x SDKs (so developers could write apps for Honeycomb), but no Android 3.x source code.
azoller1 said:
Well are AOSP roms any good, are they just like any other rom, but of course the acer update would be the best and would mostly be bug free but would take awhile to get here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AOSP Roms are among the best, Oxygen for the Desire and SGS2 is possibly the best phone Rom available.
drdaeman said:
Nope, SDK is development kit, not (complete) system's source code, but just a precompiled binaries and header files.
Consider yourself: Google did release Android 3.x SDKs (so developers could write apps for Honeycomb), but no Android 3.x source code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's this kernel source code?
http://global-download.acer.com/Ste...SC=PA_6&LC=en&OS=a05&FS=O01&Category=Document
kjy2010 said:
What's this kernel source code?
http://global-download.acer.com/Ste...SC=PA_6&LC=en&OS=a05&FS=O01&Category=Document
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's KERNEL source code, not Honeycomb source code.
Kernel != OS
kjy2010 said:
What's this kernel source code?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is kernel source code, not Honeycomb one.
Android/Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2, while Honeycomb (userspace stuff) is under Apache license (with portions under BSD and MIT licenses). GPLv2 is a "strong copyleft", which requires all distributors to provide source code. Apache, BSD, MIT and alikes are "weak copyleft", and they permit distribution of compiled binaries without obligation to provide source code.
Acer (as everyone out there) was legally obliged to publish kernel source, due to GPLv2 license terms. Yet, they've probably got Android source code under some special proprietary license (with NDA) from Google and are unable (whenever they're willing or not) to publish the source.
drdaeman said:
This is kernel source code, not Honeycomb one.
Android/Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2, while Honeycomb (userspace stuff) is under Apache license (with portions under BSD and MIT licenses). GPLv2 is a "strong copyleft", which requires all distributors to provide source code. Apache, BSD, MIT and alikes are "weak copyleft", and they permit distribution of compiled binaries without obligation to provide source code.
Acer (as everyone out there) was legally obliged to publish kernel source, due to GPLv2 license terms. Yet, they've probably got Android source code under some special proprietary license (with NDA) from Google and are unable (whenever they're willing or not) to publish the source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kind of misleading for Acer to label it as such then:
" kernel source code (for Android 3.2 HoneyComb)"
I can't wait to see ICS on the Iconia. Seems a pity the Iconia doesn't have NFC though, as the Beam app in ICS looks amazing! Just as well, it'd probably be sort of tricky to pull off with a tablet in one hand and a phone in the other
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk
kjy2010 said:
Kind of misleading for Acer to label it as such then:
" kernel source code (for Android 3.2 HoneyComb)"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that's exactly what it is..
ernstcomplete said:
I can't wait to see ICS on the Iconia. Seems a pity the Iconia doesn't have NFC though, as the Beam app in ICS looks amazing! Just as well, it'd probably be sort of tricky to pull off with a tablet in one hand and a phone in the other
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beam won't work with our tablets unfortunately. No NFC.
Sent from my A500 using xda premium
which honeycomb tablet do you think will get the official ICS update first? i think the motorola xoom will
azoller1 said:
which honeycomb tablet do you think will get the official ICS update first? i think the motorola xoom will
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My bet is Samsung galaxy, since Samsung already has a jump on the software.
Sent from my ADR6300 using XDA App
duloz said:
My bet is Samsung galaxy, since Samsung already has a jump on the software.
Sent from my ADR6300 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wonder if samsung will keep touchwiz ui on the ICS update
www auraslate com
Hey guys here is an open source hardware tablet site... it might help those out there
johanngummy said:
www auraslate com
Hey guys here is an open source hardware tablet site... it might help those out there
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Open Source, never pertains to hardware, because you don't chisel code on to a circuit board, its Open Design, in which they also offer full open source code for the said open designed tablet. Just saying.
3D printers with atom precision/accuracy are possible in theory, that would really make open source hardware possible
RolAr said:
3D printers with atom precision/accuracy are possible in theory, that would really make open source hardware possible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except theory isnt reality.
Very cool!
Good luck with this project, looking forward to see where it goes. Boards still seem a bit on the expensive side...
http://www.auraslate.com/
sounds awesome, but from pieces of hardware to all components of a smartphone it's a hard way.. hope they will coming
Ha, u guys may heared about open moko? Far away from first android, open source hardware and linux, no one take attention, its almost dead, a phone using linux os, it was born before android, and yet still in birth state, jus cox it have very few supporters,and devs.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using xda premium
Anybody have tried this tablets? The website says it's open for deliveries. The 7 inch version is just 150usd
Adam Outler did an "unboxing" with the 10 inch version.
I'm interested with a review of any of the unit, have any suggestion?
garuhhh said:
Anybody have tried this tablets? The website says it's open for deliveries. The 7 inch version is just 150usd
Adam Outler did an "unboxing" with the 10 inch version.
I'm interested with a review of any of the unit, have any suggestion?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At least Adam's first impression (him being an actual device owner) and mine (based on reading through their site) is they are not nearly as open as they claim to be.
1-2 months ago they were providing ICS firmwares without kernel source - that's less open than any legitimate Android tablet manufacturer. Not sure if they've rectified these issues, but any vendor claiming to be open source/open hardware should NEVER have done that except by accidental error - however there was a post in their forums effectively saying they were withholding source.
http://auraslate.freeforums.org/kernel-for-ics-t53.html - found it, see auraslateadmin's post - This is UNACCEPTABLE from ANY company, ESPECIALLY one that claims to be open source. If you have provided a kernel binary to the public, you MUST provide source code upon request.
Auraslate's marketing of being "open" is a blatant lie - they keep talking about how open they are to sell devices, but then withhold kernel source.