This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users. If some vendor makes a crappy tablet that runs Android, users will associate that crappiness with the Android trademark because they are unable to tell whose fault it is. There is no similar risk of the Apache trademark being tarnished because some guy sets up a crappy webserver with it.
> "This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users."
No, it doesn't.
It insists that "Open" retain some reasonable meaning.
The difference in technical competence is what makes this move understandable and in Google's best interests. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense to continue calling the project "Open".
Honeycomb is closed. The reasons are irrelevant to whether "Open" is an acceptable descriptor. Google may one day make Honeycomb "Open". But that too is irrelevant to whether "Open" is an acceptable descriptor today.
"This ignores the difference in technical competence of consumers versus Apache users."
And Google's behavior ignores the spirit of open source, which expects the source to actually be available regardless of whether or not somebody's trademark might look bad.
