That's for AOSP. And do you think you're going to be able to submit anything more than bug fixes? You think Google will let you, for example, make a major wholesale change to Android (like adding a new feature)?
Yes, that's how group messaging made its way into 4.2.
[QUOTE name="EricTheHalfBee" url="/t/156882/play-time-over-for-60k-low-quality-apps-as-google-fights-android-spam/40#post_2307817"] You are a poor troll. I never once mentioned skins yet you seem determined to try and steer the discussion that way. Skins are irrelevant to the discussion at hand - whether Android is open (which it's not).
I used access to Google Play as an example, but it's not the only one. I see you're carefully avoiding discussion of the OHA and what rules members have to follow. If you read that and come back to say Android is open, well, I want some of what you're smoking. For example, Acer tried to make a phone for Alibaba that ran Aliyun (an Android fork). Google pressured Acer not to release the phone (the day before the announcement) and Acer complied, or else they could lose membership in the OHA (and lose the ability to make and sell Android phones with full access to Google services). Yeah, that sure sounds like open software to me.
The version of Android that Amazon forked isn't really open source either. There are many different aspects that define open source software - it's not black and white. For example, who controls the source code? In many open source projects different companies can modify the source code and submit the modifications back to the project. In this way you have many developers contributing to the software and a system in place where improvements and source code updates (like bug fixes) are checked by multiple parties before being approved to become a part of the software. For Android all the source is controlled by Google. Samsung can't modify Android and then have their modifications added to the Android pool. Neither can Amazon. Google is the one responsible for all of Android and they don't accept outside contributions. All Amazon can do is modify something Google has provided to them and use it as they see fit. It's open source on a one-way street.[/QUOTE] I probably am the worst person at trolling. I've never tried it. You made mention of the Samsung version, which would be a skin.
I haven't read the rules of the OHA but I am aware that there are “official" versions of Android that have access to Google services and forked versions that don't get access. I think the mere existence of a fork like Amazon's is evidence that Android is open. Whether there are restrictions on how far you can take Android before losing Google's official blessing has no bearing on whether the core software of Android is freely available to be downloaded, modified, and contributed to, which is my understanding of open.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
That's for AOSP. And do you think you're going to be able to submit anything more than bug fixes? You think Google will let you, for example, make a major wholesale change to Android (like adding a new feature)?
Yes, that's how group messaging made its way into 4.2.
You are a poor troll. I never once mentioned skins yet you seem determined to try and steer the discussion that way. Skins are irrelevant to the discussion at hand - whether Android is open (which it's not).
I used access to Google Play as an example, but it's not the only one. I see you're carefully avoiding discussion of the OHA and what rules members have to follow. If you read that and come back to say Android is open, well, I want some of what you're smoking. For example, Acer tried to make a phone for Alibaba that ran Aliyun (an Android fork). Google pressured Acer not to release the phone (the day before the announcement) and Acer complied, or else they could lose membership in the OHA (and lose the ability to make and sell Android phones with full access to Google services). Yeah, that sure sounds like open software to me.
The version of Android that Amazon forked isn't really open source either. There are many different aspects that define open source software - it's not black and white. For example, who controls the source code? In many open source projects different companies can modify the source code and submit the modifications back to the project. In this way you have many developers contributing to the software and a system in place where improvements and source code updates (like bug fixes) are checked by multiple parties before being approved to become a part of the software. For Android all the source is controlled by Google. Samsung can't modify Android and then have their modifications added to the Android pool. Neither can Amazon. Google is the one responsible for all of Android and they don't accept outside contributions. All Amazon can do is modify something Google has provided to them and use it as they see fit. It's open source on a one-way street.[/QUOTE]
I probably am the worst person at trolling. I've never tried it. You made mention of the Samsung version, which would be a skin.
I haven't read the rules of the OHA but I am aware that there are “official" versions of Android that have access to Google services and forked versions that don't get access. I think the mere existence of a fork like Amazon's is evidence that Android is open. Whether there are restrictions on how far you can take Android before losing Google's official blessing has no bearing on whether the core software of Android is freely available to be downloaded, modified, and contributed to, which is my understanding of open.