To expand on my point from last time:<p>Android source code is licensed under the GPL and Apache licenses and therefore the source code is open for developers.<p>The Android project isn't really developed in the open therefore the process is closed for most developers.<p>Most Android hardware is carrier locked, has proprietary firmware, or has proprietary services loaded on top and therefore is closed for users.
It seems whenever someone tries to come up with tangible benefits of Android's "openness" they invariably end up describing properties of the Palm Pilot, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry operating systems that have absolutely nothing to do with open source. Case in point:<p><pre><code> > I've been pleasantly surprised at how much more
> configurable Android is. The fact that you can
> replace the home screen with a third-party launcher
> or even make your own app store is a clear sign
> that Google's heart is in the right place.
</code></pre>
Or, it's a clear sign that Android isn't well designed and is no different than most of the other mobile devices that have appeared in the last 10 years. And if you purchase a locked-down Android device from your carrier then it literally is no different.
What Joe considers important (public source tree and outsider commits) are probably amongst the absolute least important and interesting aspects of openness. It's the type of thing only a maintainer would care about.<p>He's arguing a point that nobody cares about. Even RMS is probably saying, "You're being a bit pedantic here about the definition, aren't you Joe?"
This article (please read the whole article, including the PDF that is mentioned) mentions that Google might be "open" regarding the source code, but it is not open regarding which components can be replaced in Android.<p>It seems that Google doesn't allow the carries to replace the Google Location Service.<p><a href="http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android" rel="nofollow">http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/the_welcome_to_android</a>