Where's the Android 3.0 Honeycomb source code?(pointlessrants.com)
pointlessrants.com
Where's the Android 3.0 Honeycomb source code?
http://www.pointlessrants.com/2011/01/android-3-0-for-the-rest-of-us/
8 comments
Not to detract from your excellent reply, but I believe most of the Android source is under the Apache 2.0 license (http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html). So even folks who've been distributed a copy of the software are not entitled to the source for most of Android (there are some exceptions, such as the Linux kernel used by Android).
Holy cow, you're right! I knew Dalvik was built with the help of Harmony, but for whatever reason, the broader implications / possibilities of that never really clicked. Thanks!
Android is Open Source, but the development process is not and has never been particularly open. The Gingerbread source is currently a closed branch, only accessible to Google and (apparently) select partners.
This has been the way of things for every Android release, so it's not like this is anything new or newsworthy about Gingerbread.
Although my guess would be the blog author already knows this, and is just trying to be snarky by pretending to not understand that just because a piece of software is open source, doesn't mean all the development will be done openly.
This has been the way of things for every Android release, so it's not like this is anything new or newsworthy about Gingerbread.
Although my guess would be the blog author already knows this, and is just trying to be snarky by pretending to not understand that just because a piece of software is open source, doesn't mean all the development will be done openly.
Since when does open-source mean you have to push every single commit you make?
I guess my point is, quit being an annoying pedant. We all know the source will be on kernel.org when it's done.
I guess my point is, quit being an annoying pedant. We all know the source will be on kernel.org when it's done.
I should have commented here instead... repasting...
Very simply you are correct, it’s not available yet until it’s complete. Google I’m sure gives hardware manufacturers early access to the code base so they can test prototypes but only the GA release is available to everyone. Quite frankly I think this is very wise because I like knowing that something I grab isn’t built on a half-baked alpha of Honeycomb. Let Google finish its development work then everyone can muck with the final release and we’ll all be on the same page.
If people think this isn’t open then try getting iOS to play with at any point, or consider that for fun I installed Gingerbread on a WinMo HTC Touch Pro the other day. Very simply when you’re working with a host of hardware developers on a major new OS release Google is wise to keep the development centralized until each GA version. You can’t have Bob from Poughkeepsie check in something that, while perhaps an improvement, just broke 4 prototypes and several millions in development at Samsung. You would get a stable version of Android every 2 years, not 6 months.
Very simply you are correct, it’s not available yet until it’s complete. Google I’m sure gives hardware manufacturers early access to the code base so they can test prototypes but only the GA release is available to everyone. Quite frankly I think this is very wise because I like knowing that something I grab isn’t built on a half-baked alpha of Honeycomb. Let Google finish its development work then everyone can muck with the final release and we’ll all be on the same page.
If people think this isn’t open then try getting iOS to play with at any point, or consider that for fun I installed Gingerbread on a WinMo HTC Touch Pro the other day. Very simply when you’re working with a host of hardware developers on a major new OS release Google is wise to keep the development centralized until each GA version. You can’t have Bob from Poughkeepsie check in something that, while perhaps an improvement, just broke 4 prototypes and several millions in development at Samsung. You would get a stable version of Android every 2 years, not 6 months.
This rant seems heavy on the pointless.
As the domain suggests...that's kind of what we do. We try to keep it interesting and ask good questions or provide good resources.
Open source doesn't mean open development.
Exactly. We'll see the code when the first Honeycomb device ships.
People have been complaining for years that open-source is always designed by committee and lacking a coherent vision.
It still has all the benefits of trust, forkability, hackability and control over your own future.
It still has all the benefits of trust, forkability, hackability and control over your own future.
But isn't the complaint that the product has been delivered to one vendor on a preferential basis?
You're free to do that with the GPL. If you deliver a binary to a 3rd party you need to offer them the source. If they get the source from you, they are free to pass it on to someone else, but they don't have to.
The complaint implies that doing so makes it closed source, which is false.
Open development or not - I would none the less be pissed if any of my competitors got access to the new SDK and tools ahead of me just because they had signed some special deal.
I wonder how these "special partners" are selected. Anyone know?
List of special partners: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html
Frequently Asked Questions about the Alliance: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_faq.html
Specifically:
Who can join the Open Handset Alliance?
The Open Handset Alliance brings together companies in the mobile ecosystem that each contribute to the effort in various ways. We welcome companies willing to make serious and ongoing contributions to openness in the mobile world.
Who do we contact to learn about joining the Open Handset Alliance?
Email us at [email protected]
Did that answer your question?
Frequently Asked Questions about the Alliance: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_faq.html
Specifically:
Who can join the Open Handset Alliance?
The Open Handset Alliance brings together companies in the mobile ecosystem that each contribute to the effort in various ways. We welcome companies willing to make serious and ongoing contributions to openness in the mobile world.
Who do we contact to learn about joining the Open Handset Alliance?
Email us at [email protected]
Did that answer your question?
Even within the OHA it seems that some companies get Android before others. Didn't Verizon get 2.0 first, HTC for 2.1, and Samsung for 2.3?
Awesome guys! You've educated me!
To answer the specific questions in the article:
1. Well where did [Asus] get the source code for [Android 3.0]?
Asus is a member of the Open Handset Alliance. Since they're a member of the organization responsible for developing Android, they necessarily have access to source code to their unreleased products.
2. Well where did they get the source code for [the new music player]?
Note that the title of the linked article is "Download the leaked Android Honeycomb music app now." This means that someone with privileged access to unreleased Android software made a copy of that and released it publicly, and, most likely, illegally.
3. I don’t see it? I can’t find it? There’s no updates for the SDK that contain the 3.0 API calls?
Correct. Android 3.0 has not been released yet, and thus, its source code is not available to anyone outside of the Open Handset Alliance.
4. So Asus has some kind of special deal with Google to be able to get early access to the “open” platform which is dubbed “Android”?
Yes and no. Asus and Google are both members of the Open Handset Alliance, which owns and develops Android. Google doesn't own Android, they simply contribute a great deal of engineering talent to the Open Handset Alliance. Thus, both Asus and Google have access to unreleased versions of Android.
5. Where is Honeycomb for the rest of us?
Unavailable. You're only legally entitled to a copy of the Honeycomb source if you purchase a device with Honeycomb on it, or otherwise legitimately receive the software. The Open Handset Alliance has decided to distribute publicly the source code to released versions of Android, rather than only distributing corresponding source to individuals who purchase devices. This is above and beyond their legal obligations under the GPL.
Android is developed privately, but released publicly under an open source license. Nothing in that license compels the Open Handset Alliance to work in public.