"I had no trouble hacking my EVO 4G, deleting the stock OS with HTC and Sprint crapware, and installing a build with 100% open code."
100% open code? So this means your not running any of the gmail/gtalk/gvoice/g... ? None of those are open code, and quite frankly, they are the most used applications on my android phone.
I would also argue that the android OS is one of the least 'open' open source mobile OSes available. When you compare android's development practices to companies like Nokia with their N900 and Intel with Meego, both companies who are actively concerned with making sure their changes get back upstream, and then you'll see that the openness of android is more of a facade.
Android is 100% open source. Things like Maps are just third-party applications that you can install as it pleases you. (And yes, I did install those apps after replacing the OS.)
The whole point of open source is that you can do what you want with it - you're under no obligation to give your changes back if you don't want to. At least, that's how it is under the less restrictive licenses.
OTOH, free software is not about protecting the rights of programmers - it's about the rights of users.
In that sense, a restrictive license is one that allows programmers to make the once free and open code closed and secret, restricting what users can do with it.
I am a programmer, but I am also a user. I really appreciate the rights what you call "restrictive licenses" give me and find the rights they take away (mainly the right to abuse my users) a fair price for my freedom.
You keep repeating this bullshit about protecting users over and over again.
Sorry, but the only interested users of the source code are programmers, so restrictive licenses do hurt true users of the product. As for non-programmer users they don't give a damn about openness or closeness of the code, lip service at most. The thing either works or it does not, period.
I believe there are lot of those who chose Android because they heard it is open. Now ask, how many did see the single line of Android code.
How did Android being "100%" open help those poor solus have skype and tethering on their phones.
Yeah but we're not talking about less restrictive licenses, we're talking about linux and the gpl and the fact that zero of the changes from android have made it back upstream into the kernel.
Dirk Hohndel from MeeGo made a good point at OSCON this year that open source is not just about releasing patches to code you changed, but oepn source is about engaging with the upstream projects that you're using, and that is something that android has not done well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfQTaIGPxP8
Don't get me wrong, I still think android is great, I've been using android phones since just after the G1 was released, and its a great platform, but there are definitely a lot of open issues with it that could be handled better.
> Yeah but we're not talking about less restrictive licenses, we're talking about linux and the gpl and the fact that zero of the changes from android have made it back upstream into the kernel.
Sure they have. The kernel developers deemed most of the changes unsuitable for upstream. That's a shame, but it's their prerogative to reject the changes, and Google's prerogative to still want to do things their way.
> Dirk Hohndel from MeeGo made a good point at OSCON this year that open source is not just about releasing patches to code you changed, but oepn source is about engaging with the upstream projects that you're using...
So now some guy who I've never heard of has an opinion on what open source "is," and that's canonical? I don't think so, and I don't agree (as an open source developer-in-hiatus myself).
Open source is whatever you damn well care to make of it (as long as you're honoring the relevant licenses). That's why it's so awesome.
100% open code? So this means your not running any of the gmail/gtalk/gvoice/g... ? None of those are open code, and quite frankly, they are the most used applications on my android phone.
I would also argue that the android OS is one of the least 'open' open source mobile OSes available. When you compare android's development practices to companies like Nokia with their N900 and Intel with Meego, both companies who are actively concerned with making sure their changes get back upstream, and then you'll see that the openness of android is more of a facade.