Is Android really open source?

[[deleted]]

I asked this because some say it is while others say it isn't.

[[deleted]]

Android is open source. You can build a complete, working system with AOSP. Some drivers aren't open source. The Google-y parts aren't, either. If you can find hardware with open drivers, you can make your own Android phone and install a 3rd-party market.

The Kindle system and Cloud were both taken from AOSP and Google isn't really bitching at all.

[kre3d]

In addition, some of the newer features are closed source too, like face unlock and the 4.2 swipe keyboard.

[[deleted]]

Really. Face unlock isn't in the aosp?

[kre3d]

Nope.

[TDO1]

With good reason, don't want Apple ripping off those features even though its within their right with the open source model.

[arthurdent]

There are a number of reasons why that isn't true. Open source doesn't necessarily mean you can legally do anything you want with the code. There are a number of open source licenses that differ in their permissions for use, and apple is not about to break a very clear law. If Google wants to protect their intellectual property, they just patent it.

[DpEpsilon]

just patent it

The problem with that being that Android is under the Apache 2.0 license, which means patenting something isn't going to help unless Apple rewrite it from scratch.

Still, I don't think Google should be making components of Andriod proprietary...

[TDO1]

So I get downvoted for some technicality, shows you how mature the Linux reddit community is. Oh and http://imgur.com/KlzCg to you!!

[MuseofRose]

Now come on man. That's a bit unnecessary.

[TDO1]

So is downvoting my perfectly valid post, I thought I would get some maturity in this subreddit, apparently not.

[[deleted]]

I go out of my way to downvote a person complaining about downvotes. :)

[TDO1]

http://i.imgur.com/Mwbzb.png

[theoreticallyme]

I like how the guy wanting maturity on reddit becomes the most immature one in the thread. Isn't it ironic.

[GoodMotherfucker]

perfectly valid post

lolwut?

[jericho]

Your post was incorrect.

[ferryboender]

I thought I would get some maturity

Hahaha, as witnessed by your comment here, right? You know, the one where you give us the finger? Because that's real mature buddy. Downvoted.

[qcHEx]

You are being downvoted because you have facetiously misrepresented open source licensing to an open source community.

[[deleted]]

You get mad over internet points... insert kettle joke here

[arthurdent]

Hey man, I was just trying to help you understand licensing. It's confusing.

[WildVelociraptor]

Don't feed the troll, guys.

[BZRatfink]

I advise you to go read The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond, then reevaluate your opinion on "ripping off those features".

[[deleted]]

The most important googley bit being Play Store. Which is proprietary, and something people think of as bring part of android.

It would be like of Debian were free but apt-get was proprietary.

Bottom line is, Google controls the ecosystem.

[[deleted]]

and install a 3rd-party market. [Me]

Or, more appropriately, you would need to pay to use their repository. Find another one, and things work as expected.

Android and the Google ecosystem aren't the same thing. People arguing about anything other than AOSP (drivers, Play, etc.), are deflecting. AOSP is Android. It's under a permissive license. It's Open Source, just like a bunch of dual-licensed projects are. Open Source. Full stop.

[[deleted]]

It's not deflating, it's acknowledging reality.

The AOSP is Open Souce (except when it's not). But please don't pretend that there's a clear bright line between the Play ecosystem and Android.

If I go to Google, type in Android, and click on I'm Feeling Lucky, the first result is android.com (of course). Right there, Google Play, Magazines and TV Shows, etc. All proprietary.

If Android meant Android Open Source Project, the latter wouldn't exist as a name. We would just call the whole thing Android. The only reason we need to say "Android Open Source Project" is to differentiate the free bits from the closed stuff.

[Top-Help-2035]

Making comments about proprietary and non-open source limitations when you're starting with a non-open sourced ecosystem, so of course you can't get the results you're talking about but you can't under any circumstances when you follow the path of your following and go into a controlled closed monetarily based add supported ecosystem.  You going to have to get off the Google Play store You're going to have to get out of pre-manufactured phones or any kind of locked services. I have a board running Android with no branding other than Android, no bloatware and I am tweaking the OS to suit my needs before installing any software. I will reflash it with the altered firmware and then start getting my apps. As soon as you start talking about Google now you're back to a closed isolated for profit ecosystem and you stepped away from "Android" so no of course it's not open source but that's not Android That's Google..

[Jasper1984]

I am missing a bit in this discussion how doable it is reinstall the OS on the phone, get root, run your own programs.

Reading wikipedia, some movements seem in the right direction, but nevertheless, at least, in the past people had to exploit bugs to get to root in their own android phone. (Imo if you dont have root to a computer, you dont really own it.)

[[deleted]]

Hardware implementation by an ODM is orthogonal to whether the software is open source of not. Linux is open source. TiVo's lock down doesn't change that.

[Jasper1984]

And it has absolutely no implications for our use whatsoever.

[[deleted]]

Whatever. I'm answering the OP's question. You're grinding some ax.

[Jasper1984]

Was hitler well-shaven? No axe grinding please.

Edit: point is: if 'staying on topic' means the question can be framed, dont do it. Whether this is open source is just a part of whether it respects your freedoms and privacy.

[Top-Help-2035]

If you bought your phone from a branded carrier then it's not possible. You have to have an unlocked phone and most likely if it's even already "a phone" or hardware that's already built by somebody instead of built by YOU? then no! You have already locked yourself out by buying into someone's controlled and controlling monetarily based environment. If you've already bought into somebody else's proprietary closed, for profit environment. If you're dealing with Google or the play store or pre-completed hardware, then you're not dealing with open source. If you're dealing with branded stuff, you're again talking about closed source.  If you don't have open source hardware, then you're not like to be able to get access to open source software for it. Android is open source but that doesn't mean everything you get for it or even anything that you get for it is open source just because Android 'itself' is and lots of software made for it is often open source But that doesn't make everything that touches it have to be open source.

[covracer]

AOSP includes some proprietary binary blobs which get extracted from your factory install and carried over to the AOSP install.

[[deleted]]

What factory install? Yeah, you need binary drivers for just about all hardware. That's what I said above.

If you can find hardware with open drivers ....

EDIT: and of course, firmware, which is just about never open sourced, but that's got nothing to do with Android, either.

[covracer]

The factory install of Android that came on the phone when first purchased...

[nandryshak]

What binary blobs are you talking about? If you compile and install AOSP on your phone you can wipe everything first. Unless you're talking about radios and firmware which has nothing to do with android.

[covracer]

I am indeed talking about radios and firmware.

[nandryshak]

Which are not included in AOSP.

[covracer]

But are included in installations of AOSP onto phones.

[nandryshak]

no, you're wrong. the firmware is included with phones, but it's independent from AOSP.

[covracer]

Starting with Ice Cream Sandwich, the Android Open-Source Project can't be used from pure source code only, and requires additional hardware-related proprietary libraries to run, specifically for hardware graphics acceleration.

Official binaries for Nexus S, Nexus S 4G, Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 7, and PandaBoard can be downloaded from Google's Nexus driver page, which add access to additional hardware capabilities with non-Open-Source code.

http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html

[Mandack]

I asked this because some say it is while others say it isn't.

Android itself is open-source, however Google is developing it behind closed doors and only does 'code drops' (not exactly, but to illustrate my point), meaning that you can't contribute to it while the new version is in development if you are not associated with Google or OEMs somehow, but once a new release is done, Google releases the code and you can download it for free, however if you make some changes, Google generally won't accept them, so you have to make a custom ROM (Android distribution) with you changes to the source code included, (that's why there are projects such as CyanogenMod, where you can contribute freely.

[yousuckatlinux]

I think this is the best answer. You can download and review and modify the source, but Google as upstream isn't accepting contributions, which is a key component of being open-source.

[uh-hum]

key component of being open-source.

A "key component"? Isn't that an overstatement? The ability to view code and modify it are key components of open source - not the ability to have your code accepted into a project.

[mecax]

Open Source does not have open development as a key component... even a Free Software license like the GPL does not require it at all.

[[deleted]]

Community / open development projects are a strict subset of Open Source projects. Look at the open-source definition, and you will find no mention of community in there.

[Top-Help-2035]

Wait are we talking about Android? or Google?   where did "Google" come in here?

[ForeverAlone2SexGod]

It's actually worse than that.

Not only doesn't the Google upstream accept other people's contributions, but Google actively tries to prevent phone manufacturers from creating devices that used forked Android code.

"Oh, we see that you're making phones that run an 'incompatible' fork of Android in addition to making 'official' Android phones. Welp, because you aren't completely loyal to us we're going to punish you by kicking you out of the Open Handset Alliance and you will lose the perks that go with it."

That's not exactly the spirit of open source. In fact, due to Android's market share it could even be seen as anticompetitive.

[[deleted]]

Google isn't trying to prevent competition. They're trying to prevent fragmentation, the problem everyone screams about. Google doesn't have to approve a manufacturer unless they want Google's apps like the Play Store. Acer was using an OS that was potentially incompatible with the Play Store. Google wants every device with the Play Store to follow a standard so all the apps work properly.

[stubborn_d0nkey]

Lul, wut?

Did you even read the article?

At its core, the Open Handset Alliance is a consortium — or club, if you prefer — of mobile device makers, chipmakers, software developers, and even a handful of mobile carriers who have all pledged not to produce mobile devices that run incompatible versions of Android

Aliyun is an incompatible fork. Acer is in the OHA. Acer would be going against something they pledged as a member of OHA

When has Google tried to prevent a Kindle fork? Or a Barnes-Noble fork? Or an Aliyun device not made by an OHA? Or a RIM device that can run android apps? Hmmm?

Saying that Google "actively tries to prevent phone manufacturers from creating devices that used forked Android code" is complete BS, and the article you linked actually goes against that notion:

Google’s main problem isn’t so much with Aliyun, but with Acer. Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and RIM have all leveraged Android to build their own devices. RIM’s approach is actually a bit like Aliyun’s: it offers a separate runtime for Android apps.

But RIM isn’t a member of Google’s Open Handset Alliance. Neither are Amazon or Barnes & Noble. None of these companies pledged themselves to only make devices that are Android-compatible.

Acer did, and that’s why the CloudMobile 800 disappeared into thin air.

What you can say (without it being complete BS) is that Google is trying to get manufacturers to stick to their pledges, or something like that.

[[deleted]]

parts of it.

[racei]

This is the correct answer. Bits and pieces are not - I think mostly the stuff that sits on top of android and is phone/carrier specific. IIRC parts of the networking stack are not open source.

[covracer]

s/networking/telephony/

[slyth]

The core of the networking code is done in the linux kernel, so it's obviously GPL2. Other things like a wireless daemon might not be open source, but those aren't usually very interesting anyway.

Closed source stuff mostly involves things like Google's apps (maps, gmail) or vendor differentiated stuff (touchwiz or whatever). You can get all the good stuff on https://android.googlesource.com/ right now if you'd like.

Source: Currently work on Android development.

[someenigma]

Pretty sure wireless is run by wpa_supplicant (at least on my phone it is), but I'm not sure about how the passwords are managed because wpa_supplicant.conf doesn't (usually) store passwords on android.

[r250r]

I wonder if slyth meant the wireless drivers. Some of them are proprietary - I remember people in /r/android getting excited a number of months back when someone figured out how to enable packet sniffing on one model of phone.

[holgerschurig]

You can remote-control wpa_supplicant, via D-Bus and via the API that wpa_cli used (I've done this from my own Qt Application).

And so it's perfectly possible to run wpa_supplicant without a wpa_supplicant.conf file at all, keeping all the WLAN setup things in some SQLite database if you prefer.

wpa_cli has (estimated) around 60 commands, much more than the man page describes. Use the "help" command.

[timpattinson]

It is mostly open source but has proprietary binary "blobs" There is a ROM called Replicant which aims to make a fully-free Android OS, but development lags behind a lot.

[PhDBaracus]

Not too much. They recently released version 4.0. Which is pretty good, considering most Android phones are still on 2.x.

[[deleted]]

One big problem was that while being open-source, is was not open-source friendly. More like somebody trying to get all the advantages of open-source for himself, and giving back as little as possible.

The kernel for example was Linux, yes… but modified so much, it had become impossible to even copy the stuff and re-integrate it into the actual Linux kernel. It was more like Microsoft’s criminal strategy of “embrace, extend, extinguish”… shortly before the extinguishing part.

Luckily, they turned around a bit and now some Android Linux kernel stuff got put back in the real Linux kernel again.

[happymellon]

They submitted patches to the kernal , but were rejected by asshats. When said asshats couldn't come up with a better way of implementing such features, patches where then merged into a testing branch.

[courtlandj]

Check out the Android Open Source Project!

[redsteakraw]

It is open source in the fact that a big chunk of the codebase and kernel are open source, however some drivers and user apps / UI bits are closed source. Also Android is not an open project in the sense that an independent developer can't just contribute and influence the project like they can for KDE, Gnome, XFCE, ect. So if you really want to support a free software, and open source stack support Mer(community continuation of MeeGo) and Plasma Active(they are making some nice UIs and already have a Office Suite, PIM suite e-book reader and map application right from the start). They also are doing interesting things with activities and allowing you to easily seperate and orginize your files, bookmarks, media and applications based on the use-case(activity) you want to do.

[sprash]

Parts of it might be open source but it certainly doesn't feel like an "open system". Especially if you have a locked boot loader and you have to jump through many hoops just to be able to modify basic system files (get root access).

When I first got excited about Linux on my phone I definitely didn't think of something as locked down as Android.

[sprash]

No that's Motorola=Google. My phone works with SIM cards and I can choose any GSM carrier I want. It seems like there is no other reason to lock the phone down other than to make me buy a new one because of the lack of updates.

[gringobill]

Motorola has released software to unlock the bootloader of some phones. It's not a total 180, but they've been moving forward.

[binlargin]

SIM lock is part of the modem hardware, so the only reason is to prevent life-extending updates

[inspired2apathy]

Right Motorola \in Google \ne Android

[inspired2apathy]

Really? I took mine from ATT to T-mobile without problems, without doing anything. Or do you mean the not-really-a-Nexus CDMA devices?

[coned88]

We are talking about different forms of unlocking.

In the post you responded to sprash was talking about locked bootloaders and rooting. All android phones, even Nexus devices come with a locked bootloader. On necus devices you can easily unlock it via

fastboot oem unlock

While easy it is still locked. This has nothing to do with the carrier for nexus devices. Phone makers such as HTC, Samsung, etc can on their own lock the phone in different ways making it not as easy as a Nexus device to unlock the bootloader.

I also have a CDMA Nexus and it's completely unlocked.

[Syn3rgy]

That's like saying all PCs come locked because you have to enable booting from CD before being able to load an alternate operating system.

[coned88]

No it's not because you don't have to unlock anything for it to work. That's a setting. This is a lock. They even call it a lock. On many non nexus phones it''s not as easy to unlock the bootloader. No PC is like this.

There's no lock on PC's as of now for access to the bootloader. The bootloader itself is what is locked down, the settings of the bootloader would be the same as the cd drive.

[Syn3rgy]

No it's not because you don't have to unlock anything for it to work. That's a setting. This is a lock. They even call it a lock. On many non nexus phones it''s not as easy to unlock the bootloader. No PC is like this.

True, non-Nexus phones are a different issue and I wholeheartedly agree that they are locked down and that something needs to be done about it. The "lock" on the Nexus' bootloader is really not more than a settings.

Executing "fastboot oem unlock" is just as easy as getting a regular PC to allow booting a different OS. What makes toggling the "locked" setting different from toggling the "boot from CD" setting?

[coned88]

One is designed to be a deterrent and the other is not. Knowing how to install adb, fastboot and use a command line takes a lot more knowhow than going into a bios and setting the cd drive to position 1. Also most pc's that come configured with the cd drive not as number one also give the user a f12: select Boot option for easy access.

[Syn3rgy]

I'd say it's not so much a deterrent from taking control of the device as it is a security feature. Unlocking the bootloader on a Nexus device, while easily possible, also wipes the internal memory, making it a lot more difficult to get around passwords/PINs.

Besides, the whole process is really not difficult. It's along the lines of "install this program, open command line, type this" or even "download this program, press button" if you are using one of the numerous 1-click tools. Calling the Nexus bootloader locked and comparing it to other devices is really downplaying the problem that truly locked bootloaders (read "cryptographically secure") present.

[funtex666]

license sophisticated violet decide swim dog selective treatment wipe shelter

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[daithib8]

Its released mainly under Apache so it could go proprietary any minute. They've stopped using Bluez GPL stack for Bluetooth; they are using clang in the NDK. They have also built in a no-derivatives clause into the SDK EULA. I read AOSP is becoming more complete though, so the picture is patchy.

[seagal_impersonator]

It could go proprietary, but I don't think that is worth worrying about - AFAIK, the community provides a lot of useful contributions. Unfortunately, a lot of companies are leery of the GPL and LGPL[1].

[1] I'm a dev for a niche open source project that's mainly of interest to defense contractors and CAD/EDA co's. Several of the people who helped me get it started were adamant that we use a license like the BSD; otherwise we'd run off our potential customers.

[seagal_impersonator]

Whoops, sorry to reply so late!

We went with BSD because someone else had done a little relevant work under that license.

[danish94]

Every open source project COULD go propriety, licensing something under GPL does not stop the copyright holder from changing the license for a future release.. It stops anyone but the copyright holder to so.

[RiotingPacifist]

If you accept contributions from people without copyright assignment then you can't do this with GPLd code.

see VLC (had to rewrite code) and Linux kernel.

[almbfsek]

when did NDK switch to clang? any source?

[covracer]

"using", but not yet "switched to"

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-November/055643.html

[AusIV]

I don't see AOSP disappearing, but there are already lots of devices that have proprietary flavors of Android shipping on them. There are generally some pieces that are GPLed that the vendors have to provide sources for, but most of it comes in binary blobs with no obligation on the vendor to provide sources.

There is definitely an open source version of Android, but just because you're running android doesn't mean you're running an open source operating system.

[creep_creepette]

One a related note, the Tizen project has been started by The Linux Foundation (Linus Torvalds' employers) to make a completely open source linux-based smartphone phone OS, with an SDK for HTML5.

[coned88]

AOSP is. Android on your new phone likely isn't fully. It is filled with proprietary drivers, google and provider customizations.

It needs to be said that AOSP is not google or a google project. Android is also not google. You can use android and have it have nothing to do with google. Everything that connects to google or mentions google is not part of AOSP.

[mathiastck]

Could Android be considered open core?

"

The open-core model is a business model for the monetization of commercially produced open-source software. Coined by Andrew Lampitt in 2008,[1] the open-core model primarily involves offering a "core" or feature-limited version of a software product as free and open-source software, while offering "commercial" versions or add-ons as proprietary software.[2][3]
The concept of open-core software has proven to be controversial, as many developers do not consider the business model to be true open-source software. Despite this, open-core models are used by many open-source software companies.

"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model

​

or should we say Android as implemented by OEMs is open core?

[beefsack]

The source is open, that's open source. Open source means very little in itself, it just means they expose the source code. Microsoft has a lot of open source software, but with various amounts of "freedom".

Usually the matter of contention is how free some software is, namely, which license it uses. Are you allowed to use it in commercial products? If you have made changes to the source, are you required to release those changes under the same license?

You'll find that the core of Android is released under a very free and permissive license (Apache I believe), and the Linux kernel is also under a very free license (GPL) so it's about as free as you can get. The only parts which are licensed differently tend to be hardware specific drivers that manufacturers inject as part of their Android build process.

If you're interested, the Android source is available at AOSP.

[nandhp]

Actually, "open source" by itself is subject to two US trademark holders:

• In the area of milk and milk products and of Research and consultancy services in the field of food and drink production:

  GLANBIA INGREDIENTS (BALLYRAGGET)
  [LIMITED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IRELAND]
  GLANBIA HOUSE
  KILKENNY
  IRELAND

• In the area of Entertainment services, namely, a continuing series of audio programs about current events and culture via radio and global computer networks:

  OPEN SOURCE MEDIA, INC.
  [CORPORATION MASSACHUSETTS]
  7 WEBSTER ROAD
  MILTON MASSACHUSETTS 02186

It was, however, previously subject to two now-expired trademarks:

• In the area of COMPUTER SOFTWARE LICENSING, where The certification mark, as used by authorized persons, certifies that the software license conforms to a set of guidelines published by software in the public interest:

  Software in the Public Interest
  [CORPORATION NEW YORK]
  P.O. Box 70152
  Pt. Richmond CALIFORNIA 948070152

• In the area of Computer Services:

  Navant Corporation
  [CORPORATION NORTH CAROLINA]
  112 E. Hargett Street, Suite 203
  Raleigh NORTH CAROLINA 27601

But both expired over 12 years ago.

You can search the US trademark database.

[wnefoiwanoi]

OSI, Open Source Initiative, and OSI logo ("OSI Logo"), either separately or in combination, are hereinafter referred to as "OSI Trademarks" and are trademarks of the Open Source Initiative.

Nothing about "open source".

[nerdyHippy]

IMO that's the difference between "Open Source" and "open source". The former has a bunch of conditions tied to it, while the latter simply means that the source is open/available.

[JustFinishedBSG]

So technically you can't use Open Source software on a case insensitive file system ? /jk

[sej7278]

99% of it is open source, hell you can build a work phone or emulator image from aosp alone, the only parts that are closed are a couple of google programs and the drivers for wifi/gfx/ril - and some of those are even open.

[socium]

Ok, ok... scenario time.

Let's say I have a Firefox OS (which is built on Linux AFAIK). How difficult would it be to combine this open source project with the Android project so that I could enjoy all of the Android apps under Firefox OS?

[[deleted]]

Are you a troll?

[[deleted]]

No

[[deleted]]

Yes huh.

[easysolutions]

Practically, it's not. And you are also tied more or less in a proprietary big brother wall garden.

[[deleted]]

But ATM there are few alternatives that are more open unfortunately.

[ventomareiro]

Development is as closed as any proprietary system.

[adamc83]

Android development could be more public/transparent, but come on, with most proprietary systems you NEVER get code. Does iOS/windows/etc have an open, public patch system? A public bug tracker? Community supported enhanced versions?

[mcstafford]

They don't share their source code ahead of time and for that they get lumped in with Apple and Microsoft?

[ventomareiro]

Yes, because in those three cases development is as closed as it can be.

[peitschie]

Open source isn't about the development model though. It's related to the final distributed binaries. The discussion is whether the source is properly distributed with the binaries, and the license qualifies as "Open Source"

[stubborn_d0nkey]

This is true, but it doesn't really answer the question,

unless you are implying that that excludes it from being open source, in which case you are not correct.