Comment by rattray
11 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Linus Torvalds famous for his iron grip of Linux? In a very different way, to be sure, but it's my understanding that just because you make something open source doesn't mean you have to (or even should) relinquish control.
I think it's also pretty standard to open-source the core and keep the baubles proprietary. GitHub, for example, made their git interaction library open-source but their git hosting service itself is closed, as far as I know.
Every open source project has someone (or some group) in control, and contributions can't land without their say so. But anyone who feels that the current leadership is doing it wrong can fork the code and try to persuade people to use their version. This is very important to the way open source software works.
Google have a level of control beyond that: they undermine anyone trying to fork Android by not letting them use Google's apps and services (even as they allow such use on competing systems like iOS).
Sure. That makes perfect sense to me - Google apps and services aren't open source in spirit or practice. If I wanted a pure open-source mobile OS of my own, I wouldn't want any of Google's apps or services tainting it; if I did, Google would evaluate that option on their own, as they should.
I have a feeling that if an Android fork actually started to gain serious market share, Google would very quickly allow them to use GMail, Youtube and the other apps.
Amazon have a Kindle product that is an Android fork with serious market share. I don't know if Google has anything in the Kindle market place with GMail etc.
1 reply →