Android is open in the same sense that the Lua programming language implementation is open. Lua is certified open-source software, and distributed with a very liberal license, but PUC-Rio is in complete control of all the development.<p>It's certified by the OSI, whose definition of "Open-source" is available at <a href="http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php</a>. To summarize, open-source means (1) The software and modifications can be redistributed freely, (2) The source code is available, (3) Users are free to modify the software. Android meets these requirements.<p>The software is open-source. The project development is not open: See <a href="http://www.lua.org/license.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lua.org/license.html</a><p>> Lua is free open-source software, distributed under a very liberal license (the well-known MIT license). It may be used for any purpose, including commercial purposes, at absolutely no cost. Just download it and use it.<p>> Where does Lua come from?<p>> Lua is designed, implemented, and maintained by a team at PUC-Rio, the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Lua was born and raised in Tecgraf, the Computer Graphics Technology Group of PUC-Rio, and is now housed at Lablua. Both Tecgraf and Lablua are laboratories of the Department of Computer Science of PUC-Rio.<p>and <a href="http://lua-list.2524044.n2.nabble.com/Lua-open-source-or-not-td5586188.html#a5588414" rel="nofollow">http://lua-list.2524044.n2.nabble.com/Lua-open-source-or-not...</a><p>> An "open-source project" has one meaning, an "open-source software" has another. The project is not open source, the software (the result of the project) is.<p>Few people have had a problem with this principle as applied to Lua. I'm not sure why this is confusing or newsworthy when it's applied to Android.
I'm sorry, but I'm with Jason Kincaid on this one.<p><a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the-bombshell-that-wasnt-foss-patents-android-scoop-misses-the-mark/" rel="nofollow">http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the-bombshell-that-wasnt-fo...</a><p>There wasn't anything new in those documents. We already knew that Google only put out final releases and we already knew about lead phones. It was all public knowledge.<p>That doesn't mean that it has no bearing on the case, but it's not revelatory.
Community Open Source is a subset of the whole Open Source thing, but not having an open development process doesn't make your code closed source. Google releases Android source code under the Apache 2.0 license, which is definitely open source, so: Where's the matter?<p>This just looks like smoke in the eyes from Oracle lawyers.
The title is very misleading and should be changed. It sounds like Google is telling the developers of apps that they can't use open source licenses, when it's actually google as a company develops the Android OS in private, then releases the source to the public after it is developed.
As an untrained reader, I find this very strange. Not open sourcing your products could be a reason to forbid a merger, because you could gain an advantage over your competitors? Really? Is it illegal to be better than your competitors?<p>It almost sounds as if there was a law that companies have to open source their products, which I am pretty sure does not exist (IANAL, though).
It's still open source if the source is published later, but I think being open source is not enough any more (was it ever?). Android needs open governance, right now it's Google's project and they control it as they see fit.