Originally Posted by sulu (Post 1239606)

1st:
Android isn't successful because it's open but because it's "end-user friendly" (whatever that means - most people can use it intuitively).
My father is a good example for this. He has a Galaxy S2 and has what is usually called "advanced computer skills": He can maintain his Windows PC, is clever enough to avoid the common PEBKAC problems and in theory knows how to code. But he hasn't coded himself for more than 20 years now, so he couldn't care less about his phone's operating system being open source.

2nd:
Google frequently fails to deliver the source code as required by #2 of the open source definition [1] and has to be reminded very often to release it.
Also, even though it's not strictly a failure in terms of the OSD #2 & #3 since these paragraphs only refer to the license Google's Android is (or at least has been in the past when I checked) technically designed to make derived works hard without ripping the whole system apart and putting it back together from scratch. For example in Android 2.2 it was not possible even on a rooted phone to load additional kernel modules simply because the /system partition where these modules HAD to be stored had virtually no free space left. Resizing the partition was not possible due to automated integrity checks that complained about wrong partition sizes.

bottom line:
Yes, strictly spoken Android is open source by the terms of the OSD once they released the source code. But if you don't go by the definition but by the spirit of open source Android is not open. Google only makes it as open as is required by the licenses they are obliged to respect. Unfortunately this kind of openness is worthless.

[1] http://opensource.org/docs/osd

Originally Posted by GameboyRMH (Post 1239340)

Well here's the bad news we've all been dreading about the Jolla phones:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/36...ngry-birds.htm



:(

Originally Posted by wook_sf (Post 1239477)

" We did not expect that people will misinterpret this statement. As for the open part: Just follow what we are doing with Mer and Nemo -- our development there is completely in the open, and try to figure out how we would benefit from working on community projects now, only to later annoy them with a locked phone ;)" posted by employee of jolla....

Originally Posted by jalyst (Post 1239667)

I think you need to learn to read between the lines here....
Read his comment again, there will be hackability there for those that want it & (ideally) know what they're doing.
It just won't be there OOTB, as it shouldn't be when you're targeting mass-market/mainstream.
I'd be surprised if they had a security framework as convoluted as AEGIS (or one at all), but that remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by specc (Post 1239612)

So by "your" definition OSD is worthless because it is not in accordance to the "spirit" of open source. Please....

Originally Posted by specc (Post 1239676)

I have to disagree. STOP reading between the lines. That's what's been going on with Maemo all the time. People pretending things are better than they actually are. Regarding Jolla, this is it. It won't become more open just because you want it to be more open, just because you have an urge to "read between the lines"

I mean this is totally wacko. A company (Jolla) who can't communicate straight, and a community that can't listen straight, not even when Jolla is communicating straight. I would believe you have learned from 5-6 years with Nokia, but no.

Originally Posted by pelago (Post 1239670)

Source please?

Originally Posted by wook_sf (Post 1239699)

it's @ facebook, Jolla Pioneer Fans, one of replies on post by Zerstörer Romero
i am not quite sure how to link posts from facebook though