Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Android Source Code Gone For Good?

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-for-your-eyes dept.

Android 362

First time accepted submitter vyrus128 writes "Many people were upset at the revelation, reported here in May, that the Honeycomb version of Android would not be open sourced. But Google promised that the next version, Ice Cream Sandwich, would have full source available. Now that ICS is out, though, the source is nowhere in sight. In the thread, Android's Jean-Baptiste Queru offers the following, as to the question of whether source will ever be made available: 'At the moment I don't have anything to say on that subject.'"

cancel ×

362 comments

Well then why bring it up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770204)

seriously.

Re:Well then why bring it up? (3, Interesting)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770502)

Exactly.

Google has said all along: "We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices."

What's with all the Android-baiting on Slashdot lately? Did Microsoft buy some more advertising?

Re:Well then why bring it up? (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770514)

I welcome that kind of pressure to keep Google honest. Something has to push back against the many pressures to keep Google dishonest, and to keep Android source unavailable. Pressure from the large geek community is good.

Re:Well then why bring it up? (0)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770536)

Possibly Apple? Who did all of Steve Jobs' stock go to?

Re:Well then why bring it up? (0)

bragr (1612015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770710)

Well, California is a community property state, so his wife. Since she isn't inheriting it (she already co-owned it), she doesn't have to pay estate taxes (I think).

Re:Well then why bring it up? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770638)

What's with all the Android-baiting on Slashdot lately? Did Microsoft buy some more advertising?

Why is it anti-Android sentiments are assumed to be the product of Microsoft? They make more money from Android than they do from WP7 so if anything the anti-Android stuff is likely to come from someone like Apple.

Umm.... (4, Interesting)

zixxt (1547061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770206)

Re:Umm.... (1)

Aikar (1158019) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770226)

damn you beat me to it cause I had to login :(

Re:Umm.... (1, Redundant)

Kotoku (1531373) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770278)

damn you beat me to it cause I had to login :(

Well he saved you from making an error. The AOSP repository had some downtime and that announcement just says that the gingerbread source is available again. The ICS source is Android 4.0

Re:Umm.... (5, Informative)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770360)

To reiterate, these servers contain only the ‘gingerbread’ and ‘master’
      branches from the old AOSP servers. We plan to release the source for the
      recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices.

Re:Umm.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770472)

They don't usually get the code into AOSP immediately after the first phone comes out (they release the GPL-required bits only). This isn't new, everyone was expecting it.

The Sky Is Falling? (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770534)

So, essentially, this "story" is nothing more than I-Hate-Google-The-Sky-Is-Falling conspiracy speculation nonsense.

Is Slashdot pandering for page-views?

Re:The Sky Is Falling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770646)

Is Slashdot pandering for page-views?

Does a bear shit on the pope?

(Probably not but let's run with it as a headline)

Re:Umm.... (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770618)

I have a question....what good will it be to get the source? The way I understand it, correct me if I'm mistaken, is that Android is using GPL 2 correct? And that there is no requirement to share driver source or anything BUT the kernel. Now considering these devices are as proprietary as the desktops used to be in the 80s how EXACTLY is one gonna find the source useful? Without the drivers these things are bricks, correct?

So I just don't get it, claiming Android is "open" without any requirements for drivers seems to me to be about as useful as claiming Apple is open because you can download Darwin. Without all the other bits one can't really do much with it, can they?

Re:Umm.... (0, Troll)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770228)

http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c73c14f9b0dcd15a?pli=1

Is Gingerbread the same as Ice Cream Sandwich? Where the hell have version numbers gone?

Re:Umm.... (1)

tywjohn (1676686) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770244)

They do have version numbers. Just like Windows XP, Vista and 7 all have version numbers.

Re:Umm.... (-1, Redundant)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770268)

They also have "development names."

And just like Windows, Google lies about the feature set and promised stuff that was never delivered. Like the source code.

Remember, "don't be evil" was replaced with "fuck 'em we have 'em hooked" long ago.

Re:Umm.... (0)

Flipao (903929) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770480)

Really? Because last I checked the source code of ever major version not named honeycomb had been released.

If they ever decide to stop releasing the source, self entitled trolls like you still have no right to complain: They've released more OS source code than Apple and Microsoft combined ever will.

As far as Honeycomb goes it has been explained to death that it was a quick fix to get Android on tablets, ICS is essentially Honeycomb with phone support, they've gone on record to say the source will be released, and it'll likely be out in a month or two, so take it easy.

Re:Umm.... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770572)

They've released more OS source code than Apple and Microsoft combined ever will.

Haha another ignorant fandroid. Your statement about Apple might be true only if we ignore Darwin, cups, llvm/clang, bonjour, webkit, macruby, etc. Oh and if we ignore their contributions to things like Apache, GCC and various other GNU utilities, Samba, etc. Basically your talking from your ass.

Re:Umm.... (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770688)

If they ever decide to stop releasing the source, self entitled trolls like you still have no right to complain: They've released more OS source code than Apple and Microsoft combined ever will.

No one can criticize them because, in your opinion, some of the others are worst (and Google has done some good). Obviously all criticism will be completely invalid.

If things could be worse, the current situation is obviously good.

Re:Umm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770246)

Ice Cream Sandwich is considered 4.0, Honeycomb was 3.0 and Gingerbread was 2.3

Re:Umm.... (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770296)

Version 5 will be named Cookie Crisp then?

Re:Umm.... (5, Informative)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770358)

They're letter codes with a dessert theme. The first letter of the name is in alphabetical order.

C = Cupcake = 1.something
D = Donut = 2.0
E = Eclair = 2.1
F = FroYo = 2.2
G = Gingerbread = 2.3
H = Honeycomb = 3.0
I = Ice Cream Sandwich = 4.0

I'm not sure what the B version was called. The next version will presumably start with J. Jelly maybe?

Re:Umm.... (4, Funny)

Thantik (1207112) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770398)

A = Alpha
B = Beta

Re:Umm.... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770484)

A = Alpha B = Beta

Apple Turnover

Banana Bread.

Re:Umm.... (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770512)

They're still not line or version numbers. Names are great, but when they're changed at the drop of a hat, they don't add anything, they get confusing.

Still waiting for Ubuntu's Obstreperous Ostrich.

Intel is the company that has taken it to ridiculous extremes. They have so many variants of their CPUs, with such bizarre and inconsistent designations, I (who used to be a computer tech) no longer even bother to keep track of most of them. I just look it up.

Re:Umm.... (1)

Hardhead_7 (987030) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770636)

A and B were Alpha and Beta. Also, Donut was 1.6. There was no 2.0 official release, they went straight to 2.1 (Eclair).

Also, minor version bumps sometimes have no name. Honeycomb isn't just 3.0, it's more like 3.x (3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 are all "Honeycomb"). Now, that may just be Honeycomb, which is an oddball anyway since it doesn't run on phones and isn't open source. But it may also be that going forward, only major version numbers will have desert names. So Jellybean or whatever it ends up being called may be 5.0, with any incremental 4.x versions still being considered ICS. We'll see.

Re:Umm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770366)

Not much on pattern recognition, are you?

The next version will be called Jelly Roll. It will be followed by Krispy Kreme, then Licorice Latte, then Merry Marshmallow. This stuff was announced months ago by Google. Do try to keep up.

Re:Umm.... (1)

Julz (9310) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770478)

Jello Cake? Or maybe Jam 'n Scones (spreading onto media appliances :P)

And I vote for "Smore" when we get to v14 :) oh and I don't suppose we'd have "Twinkie" for v15?

Re:Umm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770310)

http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c73c14f9b0dcd15a?pli=1

Is Gingerbread the same as Ice Cream Sandwich? Where the hell have version numbers gone?

RTFL.

We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices.

Re:Umm.... (1)

timothyb89 (1259272) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770330)

Gingerbread is version 2.3. Ice Cream Sandwich is version 4.0. Most devices won't ever see the 3.0 updates and instead will just jump to 4.0.

This whole article is a non-issue - Google has said several times that the source would be released along with the new Galaxy Nexus. From http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c73c14f9b0dcd15a [google.com] :

We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices.

They had some decent reasons for not releasing the Honeycomb source. Perhaps their reasons weren't good enough to make up for not releasing it at all, but their promises to release the 4.0 source have kept devs happy for a few months now. I see 4.0 as the update to 3.x that cleans up the source properly, and has the added benefit of no longer dividing between phones and tablets. Devs can finally get back to writing one app that works on everything.

Re:Umm.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770236)

"- To reiterate, these servers contain only the ‘gingerbread’ and ‘master’
      branches from the old AOSP servers. We plan to release the source for the
      recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices"

So this whole "news" post on Slashdot is a joke. Surprise, surprise.

Re:Umm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770714)

There is a specific difference to (well, not Apples, but other) open source projects where one can follow development and argue decisions when they are being made, rather than one year after the fact.
Someone thinks they are the smartest and don't really believe in the open source model.

Re:Umm.... (0)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770288)

Of course - because 2.3 and 4.0 are equivalent.

RTFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770336)

Of course - because 2.3 and 4.0 are equivalent.

"We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices."

Sue! (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770216)

It's your God-given right as an American. Sue for the source! Where's RMS?

Re:Sue! (2)

Kotoku (1531373) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770256)

All elements that under the GPL require source code distribution are already available for download.

Re:Sue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770698)

Well that's cool because ICS isn't available yet (binary or source). It will launch with the galaxy nexus. Which also happens to be when the source will be made available.

We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices.

http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c73c14f9b0dcd15a [google.com] This article is a complete non-story.

Re:Sue! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770276)

Too busy being crazy.

Re:Sue! (0)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770556)

Where's RMS?

Too busy being crazy.

Everyone knows he doesn't care about Ice Cream Sandwich - he prefers his own brand of Foot Cheese [youtube.com] ( @ 1min54sec )

Re:Sue! (1)

Shooter28 (1564631) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770596)

Why is this listed under your rights online? Google wrote the code, it's up to them what they want to do with it.

Re:Sue! (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770654)

Legally, of course, they can do what they want and get away with it. But one reason users and companies adopted Android was because Google promised to keep it open source and royalty free.

Re:Sue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770676)

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The Free Software Definition [gnu.org]

Re:Sue! (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770724)

Say what? They said they'd make the entire source available, GPL source is already available.

It's also your right to feebly troll the article, and you could have done so much better.

Bad title. (1, Insightful)

Mark19960 (539856) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770240)

Only Ice Cream Sandwich is up in the air, not all Android source code.
The title implies that it was all taken down, which is simply not true.

Re:Bad title. (2, Interesting)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770428)

More precisely, everything after 2.3 is up in the air. When 3.0 was released, we were promised source code for 3.1. Then 3.1 was released, and it was - "no, we've changed our numbering scheme so 3.1 is actually a minor update to 3.0, and what we previously called 3.1 will actually be 4.0". Now 4.0 is out, and Google are being very evasive about the question of source code. My guess is that the partners have become more powerful, and convinced Google that they should have a competitive advantage over the clone manufacturers in China. We might see the Honeycomb source soon, but I wouldn't expect ICS source at least until Jelly Roll is in the hands of Samsung, HTC, Motorola and Sony Ericcson.

Re:Bad title. (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770600)

Now 4.0 is out.

4.0 is out? Where? The first phone running 4.0 (the Galaxy Nexus) doesn't come out til next month.

Re:Bad title. (4, Informative)

shellbeach (610559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770716)

4.0 is out? Where? The first phone running 4.0 (the Galaxy Nexus) doesn't come out til next month.

You can run ICS quite happily in the android emulator from the SDK right now. So, yeah, it's out.

The source isn't out yet, but Google's been very specific that it will be released in the next few weeks ("We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices" [google.com] ) just as Gingerbread was.

This post is a joke -- it focuses on the comments on an engineer who has nothing to do with the ICS code release, and says as much. However, some people seem so convinced that Google's gone full-evil that they're jumping on every "no comment".

Don't /. editors check stories for troll submissions these days?

Re:Bad title. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770610)

If by "being very evasive", you mean posting the following tidbit here [google.com] :

We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices.

But that doesn't sound evasive at all. It sounds like the exact thing they've been saying since the 3.1 ruckus (which was bad, and was their fault, unquestionably). Wait at least till the first ICS device (Galaxy Nexus, I think) is shipped -- if you don't feel like giving them a reasonable couple weeks after that, well ok, but nobody paying any attention at all could possibly expect they'd have released the source by now, since they always said it would be when the phone-ready version (previously 3.1, now 4.0) was out.

Re:Bad title. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770658)

Other way around. All the awful customizations, fragmentation and side deals with Bing, etc. is Google's headache, so they play favorites with manufacturers that agree to Google's rules.

Impatient, much? (4, Insightful)

mariasama16 (1895136) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770242)

Wait, so the fact that the OS was announced 24 hours ago, its not been released on any phone/device/etc yet and people are STILL whining that the source is not released?! I want their time machine!

Re:Impatient, much? (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770300)

How about 3.0, which was released almost a year ago?

Re:Impatient, much? (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770530)

4.0 is 3.0 with support for small devices, the source for Honeycomb was withheld to stop developers from attempting to shoehorn it into phones and make fragmentation worse than it already is. The first Honeycomb devices started to come out during February/March, which is hardly "almost a year".

Re:Impatient, much? (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770320)

Mod parent up.

Re:Impatient, much? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770662)

We've been waiting nearly a year for this. The big question people, including me, are worried about is not when, but iF.

Too Early, comes with official update push (5, Insightful)

Kotoku (1531373) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770248)

This is a dumb news story. History has shown that the source release hits the AOSP shortly after the update is pushed to phones (presumably to protect against any major flaws before it is rolled out to devs).

SDK has been released, SDK Roms should be out soon and by December ICS source should be under heavy development for CM 8 and other roms if history is any indicator.

Google reported on the live stream last night plans to put the ICS source up, something they said they had no plans to do with Honeycomb.

Re:Too Early, comes with official update push (1)

Thantik (1207112) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770404)

CyanogenMod 9. They're skipping 8 because 8 was supposed to be for Honeycomb.

Re:Too Early, comes with official update push (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770494)

Now I know I'm a true nerd. I almost got goose bumps.

Re:Too Early, comes with official update push (4, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770660)

CyanogenMod 9. They're skipping 8 because 8 was supposed to be for Honeycomb.

Well, I hope the Cyanogenmod project continues. Steve Kondik is now working for Samsung: what that will do to his priorities (and to what is actually allowed to do on CMx) is hard to say. I hope it goes on: that one project has advanced the state-of-the-Android-art considerably. For the past couple of years, I won't even consider a device that I can't root and put my CM on.

Legal battle inside the walls (1)

Fnordulicious (85996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770258)

There is probably a battle between lawyers and engineers going on within the walls about whether to release the sources or not. Give the engineers some time before you start bashing them, and instead give them more reasons to use as ammunition against the lawyers.

Calm yourselves. (2)

Alunral (2477578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770260)

Chill out, guys, it's been exactly a day since this all released. They said it will be released, give them time. If we don't have it within a month, THEN worry. ...How long does it usually take them to release the source code?

Re:Calm yourselves. (1)

Kotoku (1531373) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770294)

Takes about two weeks after either the initial phone release or the update push if I recall correctly from the Nexus S and gingerbread pushes.

Barking up the wrong tree (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770264)

So on one mailing list, one Google engineer who does not have authority on the policy of releasing full source said "no comment", then the sky is falling?

Incorrect (5, Insightful)

rainwater (530678) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770284)

> "Now that ICS is out" Wow. What has happened to Slashdot? ICS is not out. The first device, the Galaxy Nexus, doesn't get released until next month. And Google did announce ASOP would be released once it is released to the first ICS devices. Basically, everything posted was incorrect. Nice try though

Eclair (2.0)? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770290)

It took a solid week after Eclair started rolling out to phones before they released the source for Eclair.

Hold ya horses

ICS Source to be released after Nexus (1)

DanLake (543142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770308)

Re:ICS Source to be released after Nexus (1)

Kotoku (1531373) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770324)

As expected. It would kill a bit of the excitement if a few hundred thousand phones were running ICS via custom ROMs before the Galaxy Nexus even hit the stores.

Re:ICS Source to be released after Nexus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770468)

For different meanings of "run" ... it typically takes at least 1-2 weeks to create a working AOSP-based ROM for the !Nexus devices.

Re:ICS Source to be released after Nexus (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770666)

For different meanings of "run" ... it typically takes at least 1-2 weeks to create a working AOSP-based ROM for the !Nexus devices.

Ha ... that might go faster now that Samsung has Cyanogen on board. Or he may be told to leave it alone. I dunno.

*headdesk*. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770338)

This is a complete non-story; which would be obvious if you actually read the rest of the thread you're
quoting from. If you did, you'd see that the only meaning of the statement is this:
answers to those sorts of questions are supposed to come from PR people and high-up people, not
regular employees.

Mod submission -1 flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770356)

This is just stupid:

Google's stated position is that Ice Cream Sandwich source will be available at an unspecified future date.

A Google employee declines to make a statement about the eventual availability, likely because he's not supposed to suggest even approximate dates, and without that there's literally nothing to add to the existing statement.

Some blistering idiot (we'll be charitable and assume he's sincere) thinks this somehow calls the eventual release of Ice Cream Sandwich source into more question than before, and (perhaps afraid people will see it for the non-news it is?) slaps on an inflammatory title suggesting all previously open-sourced Android code is disappearing.

And Samzenpus, true to form, sees it, likes it, and puts it up unaltered (since he couldn't figure out how to make it.any shittier).

Why do I even come here anymore?!

Re:Mod submission -1 flamebait (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770674)

Why do I even come here anymore?!

I ask myself that same question rather frequently. And then I come here again. And I write things.

Less often since I've been using G+ though.

bullshit.. it's coming, just not before the device (2)

marcushnk (90744) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770364)

Dan Morrill
  Oct 20, 4:29 am
Hi!
As you know, like many other projects the Android Open-Source Project was
affected by the recent kernel.org downtime. So, we’re pleased to let you
know that the Gingerbread source code is now available again, and AOSP git
servers are back online.
Even before the kernel.org downtime, it was clear that AOSP was sometimes
taxing kernel.org’s git infrastructure. When we did the Gingerbread source
release, for example, load due to AOSP made part of kernel.org unusable for
several days. This isn’t fair to kernel.org’s staff or the community, so for
some time we’ve been preparing our own git hosting on Google servers.
We were finishing up just as kernel.org experienced their downtime, so the
Gingerbread source is now available on Google’s servers. Accordingly, the
git URLs have changed.
Here are the instructions to access the new git servers:
      - You need to get the latest version of the repo tool:
      curl https://dl-ssl.google.com/dl/googlesource/git-repo/repo [google.com] > ~/bin/repo
      - You need to initialize a new repository:
      repo init -u https://android.googlesource.com/platform/manifest [googlesource.com] -b
      android-2.3.7_r1
      - The full instructions are at
      http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html [android.com]
There are a few limitations to be aware of:
      - Our priority has been getting the main source code mirrors back online,
      so for the moment gitweb source browsing and Gerrit Code Review are still
      unavailable.
      - We are now working on bringing AOSP’s Gerrit Code Review site back up,
      and hope to be able to say something here soon.
      - It might be a little while longer before gitweb comes back,
      unfortunately, since Gerrit Code Review is the next priority.
      - To reiterate, these servers contain only the ‘gingerbread’ and ‘master’
      branches from the old AOSP servers. We plan to release the source for the
      recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices.
      - As these new servers are, well, new, there may be hiccups if we
      encounter unexpected issues. However we’re keeping a close eye on them and
      will respond to any issues as quickly as possible.
Finally, we’d like to send a huge “thank-you” to the kernel.org community
and Oregon State University Open-Source Lab staff. They’ve done an
incredible job hosting the AOSP source code mirror and Gerrit Code Review
for nearly 3 years. Without them, it’s safe to say that AOSP would not be
where we are today.
Thanks, and happy coding!
- Dan

FUD Alert. FUD Alert (5, Informative)

CritterNYC (190163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770394)

This is FUD based on nothing. Google has said for quite some time that Gingerbread was available, that Honeycomb would be closed and only suited for tablets and that Ice Cream Sandwich would have the source available once it was released. Google was true to their word and everything for 2.x is available and 3.x is closed. The post linked to in the main article is the sources they are required to release (GPL) now that the Ice Cream Sandwich SDK is available. It should be noted that Ice Cream Sandwich itself as an OS has not been released and is not available on any shipping product. They've already said "We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices." It's not available on devices yet.

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (1)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770486)

No, this is precisely the same sort of criticism that gets leveled against any company which has a history of adopting open-source code without obeying open-source licenses, which justifies a default position of "I'll see it when I believe it" for Google making promises to release code. Or do you happen to know someone who has a device running Honeycomb and was able to follow up on the legal requirement that the source be made available to them?

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770526)

Here's a HINT: Check the LICENSE on Android. They don't HAVE a legal requirement for jack on the platform itself. Only the Linux kernel and things like it- which everyone seems to be complying on. Android itself is under the Apache License , which has no requirements for redistribution of the source on publication like the LGPL and GPL happen to have.

It's damned FUD you and others are spreading here. Give it a rest, will you?

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770542)

Or do you happen to know someone who has a device running Honeycomb and was able to follow up on the legal requirement that the source be made available to them?

I haven't followed Google's behavior with the Android source code that closely, but what legal requirement are you talking about? I thought Android was Apache licensed?

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (4, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770690)

Or do you happen to know someone who has a device running Honeycomb and was able to follow up on the legal requirement that the source be made available to them?

I haven't followed Google's behavior with the Android source code that closely, but what legal requirement are you talking about? I thought Android was Apache licensed?

Regardless of Android's license, there is no legal requirement for Google to release any code except portions to which they do not hold the copyright and are licensed (to Google) under viral conditions (i.e. GPL). Google's own code (as long as it is not classified as a derivative of someone else's work under the GPL), even if it was released under the GPL (or any open source license) in the past, does not have to be provided freely because Google is the copyright holder and therefore is not subject to the license as if they were a licensee.

As far as I'm aware, Google is adhering to any licensing terms that they are subject to. They also open source some of their own code, as well. Non-story.

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (1)

agent_vee (1801664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770546)

What legal requirement? Google doesn't have to release any of the Android source code because they chose the Apache license. The parts of Android under GPL like the kernel have been released. Also Google has a better track record of releasing source code than most companies so I think they have earned a bit of slack in this situation.

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770550)

No, this is precisely the same sort of criticism that gets leveled against any company which has a history of adopting open-source code without obeying open-source licenses, which justifies a default position of "I'll see it when I believe it" for Google making promises to release code.

Or do you happen to know someone who has a device running Honeycomb and was able to follow up on the legal requirement that the source be made available to them?

Every bit that is bound by the gpl has had the source code released. They own the rest of the copyright or the code is under a permissive license. There's no unfulfilled legal obligation there.

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770554)

Apache licensed source is closed, GPL things like the Linux kernel are available. Android is more open than it has to be in cases other than Honeycomb.

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770624)

No, this is precisely the same sort of criticism that gets leveled against any company which has a history of adopting open-source code without obeying open-source licenses, which justifies a default position of "I'll see it when I believe it" for Google making promises to release code.

Citation needed. Situations that exist only in your head don't count :)

Or do you happen to know someone who has a device running Honeycomb and was able to follow up on the legal requirement that the source be made available to them?

The GPLed parts were released. The Apache licensed parts have no such requirement. Please read the licence before spreading lies.

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770626)

Except Google hasn't failed to obey any open-source licences yet. They have released the source for all the parts of Honeycomb that required it. Additionally, those licences only require source releases to accompany binary releases.

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770670)

Seven people so far have posted, correcting you on this issue. I would hope it educates you; I fear that it won't. It'll be interesting to see if you make this claim again in some future discussion.

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770728)

No, this is precisely the same sort of criticism that gets leveled against any company which has a history of adopting open-source code without obeying open-source licenses ...

Someone go tell the Boost project maintainers -- tens of thousands of closed-source C++ programs must hereafter remain open because of using Boost, an open source library collection. E-mail the lawyers at Adobe, too; one of those 'open-source infringing' products is Photoshop; and Adobe co-develops Boost.GIL.

Typical FOSS idiot who thinks the (L)GPL is center stage of the open source movement.

Gingerbread is still a GPL violation (-1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770634)

This is FUD based on nothing. Google has said for quite some time that Gingerbread was available, that Honeycomb would be closed and only suited for tablets and that Ice Cream Sandwich would have the source available once it was released.

It's not FUD based on nothing. It's based on a massive violation of the GPL by every single tablet maker (or Google, one or the other.)

It doesn't matter if they said "we won't release Gingerbread source code" - they don't have that option. If I buy a Gingerbread tablet with GPL-derived work, and ask for the source, I must get it.

The concern now is that they'll pull the same illegal bullshit with ICS, and there will be precedent. As soon as the first ICS device is sold, if that person asks for the source and doesn't get it, there's a GPL violation.

Re:Gingerbread is still a GPL violation (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770668)

So sue if you're so sure. But articles such as this are pure FUD, there is nothing to indicate that they wont release the source code to ICS.

Re:Gingerbread is still a GPL violation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770704)

You meant Honeycomb, I think, not Gingerbread. Also, the GPL parts of Honeycomb were released (including the kernel and so on), it was the Apache Licensed parts they kept closed.
 
Not taking a position one way or another on if it was good or bad, just clarifying.

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770680)

This is FUD based on nothing. Google has said for quite some time that Gingerbread was available, that Honeycomb would be closed and only suited for tablets and that Ice Cream Sandwich would have the source available once it was released. Google was true to their word and everything for 2.x is available and 3.x is closed. The post linked to in the main article is the sources they are required to release (GPL) now that the Ice Cream Sandwich SDK is available. It should be noted that Ice Cream Sandwich itself as an OS has not been released and is not available on any shipping product. They've already said "We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices." It's not available on devices yet.

So why are we all still here?

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770696)

I was about to suggest that you were incorrect and that /. reported on Google saying that 3.1 would merge the two [slashdot.org] , but in re-reading the linked article from back then [pcpro.co.uk] , it appears that you're correct. They always said that ICS would merge the two together. Oh well, guess I shot down myself on that point. Yay for facts prevailing, regardless of my memory.

As for the source code commentary, I think it's ethically dissonant (read: hypocritical) for a company claiming that their OS is "open" to close the source for an extended period of time, even if they do later open it back up. I have no problems with closed source, but I do have problems with companies claiming one thing and delivering another (or nothing, in this case). I especially have issues with it since Andy Rubin, when Android was criticized in a public earnings call by Steve Jobs for its claims regarding openness, responded by Tweeting [twitter.com] :

the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”

And then only 4 months later he failed to deliver on his own idea of open for anyone wanting to use Honeycomb. At the very least, that's a disappointment. I don't see how anyone can see it otherwise. That they kept their word and are releasing the source for ICS is good, of course, but it's good in the same sort of way that your employer keeping their promise to pay you this month after skipping last month is a good thing. But it is good, and I'm glad to see that they're doing it.

Whether or not what they did is legal is a matter best left to lawyers, and I have no opinion on that subject.

Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770730)

Agreed. 100%

to all pedestrians walking through: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770408)

move along, nothing to see here (God, been awhile since I last saw that good old phrase here)

Re:to all pedestrians walking through: (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770492)

"move along, nothing to see here (God, been awhile since I last saw that good old phrase here)"
You must have been gone for awhile. Welcome back

Not real open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770446)

A real open source project releases the source code while it's under development, not after the product is released, if they feel like even doing that.

You can argue specifics all you want, but I'm an open source developer and in my opinion, "open" means open development, not just allowing other people to see the code.

Google has every right to do whatever they want, but they shouldn't be calling it open unless it really is open.

"Open Source" - yah, right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770462)

After Google initially advertising Android as open source and getting thousands of open source developers invest many man years of their spare time into Android development, why is Google silently removing the terms "open source" from some of the sites and refuses to release the Honeycomb source? This is absolutely unacceptable. By now, everyone should have recognized that Android is clearly not open source even if parts of it are. It's time to wake up and get ready for Tizen/MeeGo development!

This post is garbage. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770500)

They said yesterday they would release the ICS code when they release the phones. For god sakes it hasn't been released moron.

No shit (4, Insightful)

Rebelgecko (893016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770504)

Why should they release the source for an OS that isn't even out in the wild yet? They've already said that the source will be released once the Galaxy Nexus is in stores (probably so that the Nexus is actually the first phone running 4.0. I'm there will be plenty of custom ROMs for other phones/tablets within days of the ICS source being released)

Slashdot is turning into Fox News (4, Insightful)

Flipao (903929) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770580)

Fear mongering headlines followed by outright lies in the summaries, and people eat it up...

My Ice Cream Melted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37770592)

Alas, like the shiny new penny you had as a child, it eventually becomes dull and loses appeal. So where is Ubuntu Mobile? Who is going to step up and be the savior? The bigger question is whether open source has started to die as a movement in favor of the draw of shiny cool new tablets and smartphones. Rue these words oh ye who remain faithful. This shall be the downfall of open source if not checked.
elcar on hcet

discount jersey (0)

jersey123456 (2485408) | more than 2 years ago | (#37770640)

Cheap NFL jerseys obviously don't cost a lot and there are a few reasons for this: Low manufacturing costs Low quality materials used.In this way distributors making bulk purchases of jerseys for resale in NHL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] their store are able to give a better deal to the football fans, sale mlb jerseys, creating a larger customer C.J. Spiller Jersey base. nfl women jerseys ,So the difference between a cheap NLF replica MLB jerseys [jerseymall.biz] jersey and an authentic NFL jersey is simply that there are no official licenses held by the manufacturers or the distributor concerned and that royalties are not being paid to NFL for the use of their teams names, nfl youth jerseys, logo and colors. cheap nhl jerseys ,Getting cheap NFL jerseys is a matter of finding the Wholesale NFL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] right supplier by doing sufficient research.There are many kinds of cheap NFL jerseys.This is also justified by the large turnover in cheap NFL football jerseys in retail stores.The reduction in costs are favorable Jim Kelly Jersey to them where quality has been compromised in small items that would inevitably be replaced at a later stage. sale nfl jerseys ,When NBA jerseys [jerseymall.biz] a manufacturer is purchasing hundreds and hundreds of buttons, cheap nba jerseys ,for example, it works out very well for them to use a poorer quality button at half the price.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...