That's a mischaracterization of his own comments on why he left. It had to do with open sourcing GPU drivers, which is probably an issue with other vendors, not Google.
It was Google's choice to put that hardware into the phone, and it was their choice not to pressure qualcomm into being more open.
Your argument itself is also somewhat of a mischaracterization, because at least Google could have wrestled redistribution rights for the binary drivers, thus making AOSP actually usable on the nexus, and they didn't even bother with that.
Vendors are a convenient whipping boy when don't care about openness but wanna look like you do.
well actually while I get where you're coming from, that's still correct. if AOSP was more open he wouldn't have left.
Google doesn't give a damn about openness right now.
"If AOSP were more open he wouldn't have left."
Can you substantiate that statement at all? AOSP's "openness" is determined by its licensing, which is a standard Apache 2.0 license. The issue was whether certain vendors would contribute to AOSP under that license, not whether AOSP was open enough.
That's a mischaracterization of his own comments on why he left. It had to do with open sourcing GPU drivers, which is probably an issue with other vendors, not Google.
See: https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/9HHRURor...
It was Google's choice to put that hardware into the phone, and it was their choice not to pressure qualcomm into being more open.
Your argument itself is also somewhat of a mischaracterization, because at least Google could have wrestled redistribution rights for the binary drivers, thus making AOSP actually usable on the nexus, and they didn't even bother with that.
Vendors are a convenient whipping boy when don't care about openness but wanna look like you do.
There's a very, very simple problem with your argument:
https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers#razor
1 reply →
well actually while I get where you're coming from, that's still correct. if AOSP was more open he wouldn't have left. Google doesn't give a damn about openness right now.
"If AOSP were more open he wouldn't have left." Can you substantiate that statement at all? AOSP's "openness" is determined by its licensing, which is a standard Apache 2.0 license. The issue was whether certain vendors would contribute to AOSP under that license, not whether AOSP was open enough.
Blame mobile chipset vendors for that one.