What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ).
This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's source code in the future with a significant delay compared to early-access partners. There's no reason to congratulate them now nor complain louder some months from now, they'll continue to do what makes sense for them from a business standpoint. The only news are the yet-to-be-discovered jewels in the just-released source code.
> This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the
> fact that they will continue to release Android's source
> code in the future with a significant delay compared to
> early-access partners.
As of today there is not a single phone on the market that runs Android 4.0. Besides, open-source does not mean open-development. They have every right to release the code to whomever they want, whenever they want. And because they release the source to most (as of now, 3/4) major releases, that absolutely counts as "open source."
Besides, open-source does not mean open-development.
Google has done a lot to confuse this by referring to everything as just "open". They were still calling Android open even when it didn't meet Andy Rubin's own tweeted 'definition of open'.
"open" is an overloaded term that doesn't mean anything nowadays. "open source" on the other hand has a clear definition and Android definitely fits that definition.
Even yesterday, when Android 3/4 was not available as open-source, Android 2.2 and 2.3 which are the most deployed versions were definitely available as open-source.
And this is relevant, because that's the power of open-source. If you're unhappy with how Google is managing the project you do have the right to fork it. Amazon did just that. Xorg also came into existence that way, amongst other projects.
And yes, it takes resources and you've got to make it popular somehow and that ain't easy and I also fear that Google may close future versions of Android completely, but is it mature enough for a fork to be possible and to survive? Hell yes. Can the parent (Google) attack forks based on patents? No, because the Apache license protects you from that scenario (it's a little ironic that a pro-commercial license is safer than GPL v.2)
Which is why I consider Android to be a lot more "open" than the other 2 alternatives floating around, iOS and WinMo. That's my own definition anyway, which is why I began by highlighting the meaninglessness of the word.
Yeah, it's too bad that people won't just migrate to GPLv3. The GPLv3 codified the FSF's working practice of allowing continued use if the offender comes into compliance. Following the letter of the GPLv2 is much more severe. Fortunately, I don't think anyone's ever really insisted on enforcing GPLv2's termination clauses and Linus and most other major GPLv2 projects seem inclined to follow the FSF's model. I don't think FSF will cause trouble--but lawyer-led asshole behavior seems to be on the rise.
Some people criticized AOSP because they believe the delayed release is unfair (a reasonable criticism).
Other people (sheep) criticized them because they actually believed Google was never going to release more source or because needed an arguing point against the OS.
Actually until Google releases the source you can never be sure if they're going to release it.
They release this time.. you and I can only hope that they keep doing it in the future. It wouldn't be all that surprising if it would go closed source (except for key partners) at some point (and except for the GPL content).
Specially when any company could just rip the source, make it nicer looking and release their own version of Android and close the source on that... oh look it has a name, it's called MIUI!
Imagine if many cheap Chinese manufacturers release decent phones with it, that cost 3x cheaper than the rest, and no Google stuff inside, no control, yada yada.
Well, personally I'd get one :-)
It wouldn't be all that surprising if it would
go closed source
As with anything in life, there are forces that prevent them from doing that. Also, the whole point of open-source is the right to "fork" which trumps all other freedoms you might have.
Specially when any company could just rip the source
Few companies can do that because few companies have the resources to do it. Nokia is a monster amongst phone makers and they weren't able to make their own OS, even when their own survival depended on it. These companies using Android depend on base Android to remain open-source, they made an investment in Android because it was supposed to be an open standard, which is why Google must also play nice, otherwise they risk forks. And in case you haven't noticed, Amazon just forked Android, so it's not unheard of.
You see, forks from small players cannot survive because they'll lack the advantages of the main branch (especially the Marketplace). On the other hand, Google must play nice because a fork coming from an alliance between several of these players can kill the main branch.
Imagine if many cheap Chinese manufacturers release
decent phones with it, that cost 3x cheaper than
the rest
Considering that most phone manufacturers are assembling their phones in China, what would prevent them from also releasing cheap phones?
Also, most people don't want cheap. Most people want reliable and affordable, which is why iPhones and Galaxy S2 are selling quite well, even though there are cheaper alternatives on the market, even from trusted brands. Consumers don't want the cheapest products, instead they want the best value/price ratio (as long as they can afford it). Making an analogy with cars, there's always going to be a big market for Audi, BMW and Mercedes. Some people even prefer to buy second-hand cars from these brands, instead of a cheaper but out-of-the-factory alternative. That says a lot.
Phone makers were afraid of copyleft for various reasons, mostly irrational. Also, copyleft probably wouldn't help Google's goal of getting as many Android devices in the market as possible.
A viral license actually could have been a much more effective carrot/stick tool for Google vs. their current situation (early source access, carrier contracts, etc.). Play ball with us (Market, etc.), and we'll give you a full closed-source license. Otherwise, we expect to see full source of your modifications made available per the GPL.
No, what the OP and I have criticized them for is not releasing the code for 4. If you are unable to understand this, that is your problem. Google have done good. What you are talking about is another issue, and an important one, but it does not change the fact that WE HAVE CRITICIZED them for exactly what the OP said.
This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's source code in the future with a significant delay compared to early-access partners. There's no reason to congratulate them now nor complain louder some months from now, they'll continue to do what makes sense for them from a business standpoint. The only news are the yet-to-be-discovered jewels in the just-released source code.