On Apr 7, 3:06 pm, "JAlexoid (Aleksandr Panzin)" <jalex...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why would you need Honeycomb source?
I think the issue is not "need" vs "want." Yet. It's doing the right thing. If a network router uses some open-licensed code, but doesn't provide the sources, they are rightly brought to task for it through a legal challenge. If Motorola has shipped "stock Honeycomb 3.0" (per words from Google reps here), then Motorola's users should have access to the software on the device. While you can quibble about distinctions between Apache vs GPL, and deltas from version 2.3 to version 3.0, the point is the same: users can't call it OPEN unless the users can have the CODE. For Google to call it OPEN when users do not in fact have the CODE is disingenuous at best, and becomes more nefarious over time. Google's really good at hoovering in all kinds of data and coming up with some sort of corporate strategy from it. Google has not shown the same level of ability at communicating in the other direction. If we developers are going to be Google's partner in making Android a success, then Google needs to communicate with us. That goes for Android Market, Android Platform, and all other areas upon which we mutually depend. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
