First things first; I’m Lee Williams, married with three children – I personally do not come on here to “troll” in any sense – I want to learn new stuff help out where I can and promote the use and philosophy behind FOSS.  I “get” freedom and free software and 100% agree with it.

Whilst browsing through some ‘dents the other day I noticed a news link on the Google android story

Google is trying to use open source software to try and make money – one of the ways it can do this is by gaining a competitive advantage.  But at the same time they try to follow the free/open source philosophy.  However oftentimes the advantage is gained by going against the normal run of things from a FOSS perspective.

So android honeycomb is both open and closed depending on a Google decided business model in effect at the time.  Of course it soon became apparent (see the thread) that this is pure evil and that Google are going to rape and pillage through our villages, towns, and cities aided by their proprietary applications in their honeycomb version of android.

First point of call with that admittedly misrepresented view is…wait for it…there may be no conspiracy – hold the phone, right! I know I’m real bleeding edge here.  But it may simply be a way for Google to pump up the profit from android – equally of course it may be because of another reason which Google will publicise in due course.  However, whatever the reason why Google at the least have the common decency to come out and be clear on their stance:

“Google has many projects that follow either the open or closed model, and others that do not cleanly fit either stereotype. Android and Chrome OS are examples of permeable interfaces between Google and the outside community, and would be defined as open on the surface. However, both projects periodically “go dark” on the community to surprise the market. In a sense, they are both open and closed depending on business needs at any given time.“

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/12/google_says_android_both_open_and_closed/

It was at this point I duly pointed out that of course Google could see fit to close source on future releases of android source leaving our community where? At which point Copyleft – you may think inevitably -was mentioned.

Copyleft is great: saving previously open sourced ventures from disappearing behind closed source.  I think it’s a great thing and it’s use is to definitely be encouraged.  Why would I want to discourage the community and openness it promotes?

The sad fact here though is Google have released the android source via the ASL2 and whilst compatible with GPL v3 does not include Copyleft – simply put – Copyleft cannot be applied in this instance.

I started off by saying I was undecided as to which particular side I fall on – but why can it not be the middle? Come to think of it…does it matter at all?  On identi.ca djotaku pointed out that Google aren’t the only “Freedom Haters” in town – Canonical do this with in-house tech and their community seems to have grown well in spite of this happy in the knowledge their in-house tech will eventually make it’s way into the community. Change to a 60year old philosophy may be in order where would be if things hadn’t moved on in that time frame? All sat in front of smaller processors with tiny amounts of ram (by todays standards).  As a community we want to have openness and transparency.  We “say” all power to those who try to make a few pounds out of what our community achieves by taking something and adding to it/using it.  I believe you may have to recognise that if you want corporate input into an open project eventually that corporate is going to want something back – and a week or two exclusivity on the whole when compared to some alternatives may not be such a bad thing.

Till next time.

willy.