The smartphone platform Android has mixed up the mobile phone market. Releasing Android as open source suits developers and researchers. For example, it allows me to do research on automatic data leak detection for smartphones. At least research is more interesting and useful, if the source code of a major smartphone operating system is available, for free. So, from the user’s and researcher’s perspective, there is no reason to complain. I admit: I am a fan of Android and other Google products. But what about this slide?
It is a slide of an internal Google presentation. The responsible judge in a law case between Oracle and Google gave access to it. It reveals more about the strategies that high tech companies pursue. Of course, who thought that there is no hidden agenda when a big company publishes a state of the art technology as open source?
It states that partners which adopt to specifications of Google get early and private access to new ‘internal’ branches of Android and get a market advantage over other companies. OK, it contradicts the open source principle. But it is a “win win situation”? (BTW: I believe that one major reason of Google’s success is that they heavily apply game theory on various levels – users follow an authorities ‘alignment’ voluntarily when they think it’s beneficial to do so… again the carrots).
Arno Haesler stated in an interview in “Die Zeit”: Whenever two or more make a profit, we should look out for the excluded third who has to pay the total bill. Game theorists who aim for equilibria in their games could reply: “Yes, parties who do not participate in the game or who do not cooperate.” Or players who are not counted as participants, like competitors. This is where recent juridical fights about intellectual property comes into play, or constitute a new game. Competitors in the mobile phone market like Apple or Oracle don’t profit in Google’s games. They get the sticks because others got the carrots. What can be observed in lawsuits is a game which (ideally) is not under control of one party and it’s aim is not an equilibrium, not a win win situation. The judge seeks justice. But here, in the law case between Oracle and Google, it’s a farce. The counter parties accumulated software patents, which were developed by people who have never worked for that companies. They employ lawyers and ask them to find ways to best exploit accumulated patents in lawsuits against competitors. It’s understandable that the judge asked the counterparties to settle it out of court.
I think that one cannot simply state that Google violates the open source principle. It’s a classic case of R. Stallman versus E. Raymond, i.e. between the purists who eschew any commercial interest and the pragmatists who accept hybrid solutions.
If this were a small company one would probably not be too harsh on them. It seems a legitimate business model to make the source code available but offer additional services for those who want a comfortable solution. One can hardly complain about the fact that an engineer who has developed a piece of software has a better command of it than someone who has to learn it from scratch. Why should he not be entitled to sell his expertise?
Is it only that Google is in a legue of its own?
By the way: Richard Stallman has a non-surprising opinion about Android: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman
My opinion:
* I agree that there are discussions about the distinction between free software and open software. I don’t touch this.
* Let’s say open source software is software for which the source code is available.
* In the first versions, the Android project was clearly open source. The source code is available here: https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html
* The last version of Android (Gingerbread 3.2) has been released at 16.07.2011.
* Since today, the source code of Gingerbread 3.2 is not available to the public (except those parts of the software which are subject to the GPL licence and therefore legally have to be released).
* Google stated that until the next release (“Ice Cream Sandwich”), the full sources would not be released.
* Is Gingerbread 3.2 open source?
* At this point and for the particular release, I would simply say: no. (But that’s probably not a big drama, because there are older versions which can be improved in case of Google decides to close the source code from now on.)
What I want to point out is that even with a weak definition of open source the status of the Android project switches over time. Google understands to use open source for their purposes. As zubin said: It’s part of their business model. And who am I to blame them for it?
What is the consequence of combining the following two facts?
(1) Google is a league on it’s own (e.g., has power, money and it’s Android developers are often one step ahead).
(2) Open source projects are always at risk.
This cannot be decided in general.
Is the following helpful? Google’s open source activities are comparable to a cigarette manufacturer who spends money for cancer research. Somehow suspicious….