On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 17:21:43 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> have, as i still got the closed proprietary system. what google really
> has with their "open-sourceness" is a bunch of people that works as
> additional coders and testers for free.

Well, those people want to do that, so why not?

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:23:59 +0000
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 17:21:43 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> > have, as i still got the closed proprietary system. what google
> > really
> > has with their "open-sourceness" is a bunch of people that
> > works as
> > additional coders and testers for free.
> 
> Well, those people want to do that, so why not?

i have nothing against that, everyone is free to do what he want. what i'm against is declaring android "open project". it's proprietary project with partially opened source.

On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 17:21:43 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> it is still unusable. i don't care what problems samsung or other oem
> have, as i still got the closed proprietary system.

Not exactly, as the flourishing Android ROM scene shows.  While many people also jailbreak their Apple iDevices, it's not quite so easy to install your own ROM on them.  That comes from much of the source being open for Android, though certainly not all of it.

> what google really
> has with their "open-sourceness" is a bunch of people that works as
> additional coders and testers for free. and alot of hype like "hey,
> android is open! it's cool! use android!" bullshit.

What's wrong with reusing open-source work that has already been done in other contexts, through all the open source projects that are integrated into Android?  Those who worked for "free" did so because they wanted to, either because they got paid to do so at Red Hat or IBM and released their work for free or because they enjoyed doing it.  Nothing wrong with Android building on existing OSS.

As for the hype, the source google releases, AOSP, is completely open.  You're right that it's then closed up by all the hardware vendors, but I doubt you'll find one who hypes that it's open source.  So you seem to be conflating the two.

On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 18:50:14 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:23:59 +0000
> Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce
>> Well, those people want to do that, so why not?
>
> i have nothing against that, everyone is free to do what he want. what
> i'm against is declaring android "open project". it's proprietary
> project with partially opened source.

I'd say open source project with proprietary additions. :) But AOSP is not particularly open in how it's developed, as google pretty much works on it on their own and then puts out OSS code dumps a couple times a year.  That's not a true open source process, where you do everything in the open and continuously take outside patches, as D does, but they do pull in patches from the several outside OSS projects they build on.

In any case, AOSP releases all their source under OSS licenses, not sure what more you want.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:58:58 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> Nothing wrong with Android building on existing OSS.
i never said that this is something wrong. unethical from my POV, but not wrong.

> As for the hype, the source google releases, AOSP, is completely open.  You're right that it's then closed up by all the hardware vendors, but I doubt you'll find one who hypes that it's open source.  So you seem to be conflating the two.
i see such people almost every day. "i bought android-based smartphone 'cause android is open source!" i still can't understand how buying closed proprietary crap supports FOSS. and android is still proprietary system with opened source, not FOSS.

Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will adopt GPLv3, which will never happen.

On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 11:57:49 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> i still can't understand how buying
> closed proprietary crap supports FOSS. and android is still proprietary
> system with opened source, not FOSS.

I'll tell you how.  First off, all the external OSS projects that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, get much more usage and patches because they're being commercially used.  Android has had their linux kernel patches merged back upstream into the mainline linux kernel.

Once companies saw Android taking off, they started a non-profit called Linaro to develop the linux/ARM OSS stack, mostly for Android but also for regular desktop distros, and share resources with each other, employing several dozen paid developers who only put out OSS work, which benefits everyone, ie both OSS projects and commercial vendors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linaro

If they hadn't had success with Android commercially, there's no way they do that.  I keep making this point to you, that pure OSS has never and will never do well, that it can only succeed in a mixed fashion.

> Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will adopt
> GPLv3, which will never happen.

What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off.

On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:02:59 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will adopt
>> GPLv3, which will never happen.
>
> What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off.

GPLv3 is single worst thing that ever happened to OSS

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> I'll tell you how.  First off, all the external OSS projects that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, get much more usage and patches because they're being commercially used.
can i see some statistics? i hear that argument ("it got more patches") almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see how x86 code generator got better due to android, for example. ah, didn't i told you that i don't care about arm at all? somehow people telling me about how android boosts something are sure that i do or should care about that "something". so i feel that i can do the same and argue that i don't care.

> Android has had their linux kernel patches merged back upstream into the mainline linux kernel.
that patches are of no use for me. why should i be excited?

> Once companies saw Android taking off, they started a non-profit called Linaro to develop the linux/ARM OSS stack, mostly for Android but also for regular desktop distros, and share resources with each other, employing several dozen paid developers who only put out OSS work, which benefits everyone, ie both OSS projects and commercial vendors:
you did understand what i want to say, did you? ;-)

> I keep making this point to you, that pure OSS has never and will never do well, that it can only succeed in a mixed fashion.
why should i care if "OSS will do well"? i don't even know what that means. it is *already* well for me and suit my needs. making another proprietary crap "do well" changes nothing. more than that, it makes people forget about "F" is FOSS. so i'm not interested in "success of OSS projects".

> > Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will
> > adopt
> > GPLv3, which will never happen.
> 
> What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off.
yes, corporate bussiness will fight for it's right to do tivoisation and to hide the code till the end. that's why i'm not trying hard to help non-GPLv3 projects, only occasional patches here and there if a given issue is annoying me.

On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:48:59 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll tell you how.  First off, all the external OSS projects that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, get much more usage and patches because they're being commercially used.
> can i see some statistics? i hear that argument ("it got more patches")
> almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see how x86
> code generator got better due to android, for example.

Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%?  There are patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, that's all that matters.  As for the x86 code generator, Android has been available on x86 for years now: it's possible there were some patches sent back for that.

> ah, didn't i told you that i don't care about arm at all?
> somehow people telling me
> about how android boosts something are sure that i do or should care
> about that "something". so i feel that i can do the same and argue that
> i don't care.
>
>> Android has had their linux kernel patches merged back upstream into the mainline linux kernel.
> that patches are of no use for me. why should i be excited?
>
>> Once companies saw Android taking off, they started a non-profit called Linaro to develop the linux/ARM OSS stack, mostly for Android but also for regular desktop distros, and share resources with each other, employing several dozen paid developers who only put out OSS work, which benefits everyone, ie both OSS projects and commercial vendors:
> you did understand what i want to say, did you? ;-)
>
>> I keep making this point to you, that pure OSS has never and will never do well, that it can only succeed in a mixed fashion.
> why should i care if "OSS will do well"? i don't even know what that
> means. it is *already* well for me and suit my needs. making another
> proprietary crap "do well" changes nothing. more than that, it makes
> people forget about "F" is FOSS. so i'm not interested in "success of
> OSS projects".

You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to care about FOSS doing well.  Well, the only reason FOSS "suits" your needs and has any usage today is precisely because commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development, whether IBM and Red Hat's contributions stemming from their consulting/support model or the Android vendors' support paid for by their mixed model.

You may resent the fact that it means some non-OSS software still exists out there and is doing well, but FOSS would be dead without it.  If that were the case, there would be almost no "F," just try doing anything with Windows Mobile or Blackberry OS.  Your "F" may be less than a hypothetical pure FOSS world, but that world will never exist.

>> > Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will adopt
>> > GPLv3, which will never happen.
>> 
>> What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off.
> yes, corporate bussiness will fight for it's right to do tivoisation
> and to hide the code till the end. that's why i'm not trying hard to
> help non-GPLv3 projects, only occasional patches here and there if a
> given issue is annoying me.

What you should worry about more is that not only has the GPLv3 not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with more and more projects choosing permissive licenses these days.  The viral licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is increasingly dying off.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:48:59 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 +0000
> > Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> > <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'll tell you how.  First off, all the external OSS projects that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, get much more usage and patches because they're being commercially used.
> > can i see some statistics? i hear that argument ("it got more
> > patches")
> > almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see
> > how x86
> > code generator got better due to android, for example.
> 
> Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%?
'cause i want to know what "much more" means. 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? sure, 1 is "much more" than zero, as 1 is not "nothing". but how much?

> There are patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, that's all that matters.
nope. when i see "much more", i want to know how much is that "much".

> As for the x86 code generator, Android has been available on x86 for years now: it's possible there were some patches sent back for that.
and it's possible that i sent even more patches. so what? why nobody prise me for that? ah, i'm not a That Big Company that throws off their leavings.

> You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to care about FOSS doing well.
i still can't understand what "doing well" means. what i see is that with corporations comes a rise of "permissive licenses", and i can't see that as good thing.

>  Well, the only reason FOSS "suits"
> your needs and has any usage today is precisely because
> commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development
i don't think so. OpenBSD suits too. it just happens that i didn't have an access to *BSD at the time, so i took Linux. yet i'm seriously thinking about dropping Linux, as with all those "commercial support" is suits me lesser and lesser.

> You may resent the fact that it means some non-OSS software still exists out there and is doing well, but FOSS would be dead without it.  If that were the case, there would be almost no "F," just try doing anything with Windows Mobile or Blackberry OS. Your "F" may be less than a hypothetical pure FOSS world, but that world will never exist.
this world is still not exist. and dropping "F" will not help it.

> What you should worry about more is that not only has the GPLv3 not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with more and more projects choosing permissive licenses these days.  The viral licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is increasingly dying off.
that's why i'm against OSS bs. the success of Linux is tied with it's "viral" license. just look at FreeBSD: it started earlier, it has alot more to offer when Linux was just a child, yet it's "permissive" license leads to companies took FreeBSD and doing closed forks (juniper, for example).

On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 18:49:06 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
 >> Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an
>> OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%?
> 'cause i want to know what "much more" means. 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000?
> sure, 1 is "much more" than zero, as 1 is not "nothing". but how much?
>
>> There are patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, that's all that matters.
> nope. when i see "much more", i want to know how much is that "much".

That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would spend time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify anyway.  If it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you?  10%?  30%?

>> You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to care about FOSS doing well.
> i still can't understand what "doing well" means. what i see is that
> with corporations comes a rise of "permissive licenses", and i can't
> see that as good thing.

I've explained in detail what "doing well" means: these hobbyist OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or whatever you prefer, would be unusable for any real work without significant commercial involvement over the years.  Not sure what's difficult to understand about that.

It's not just corporations using permissive licenses.  Many more individuals choose a permissive license for their personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past.

>>  Well, the only reason FOSS "suits" your needs and has any usage today is precisely because commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development
> i don't think so. OpenBSD suits too. it just happens that i didn't
> have an access to *BSD at the time, so i took Linux. yet i'm seriously
> thinking about dropping Linux, as with all those "commercial support"
> is suits me lesser and lesser.

You think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help?

>> What you should worry about more is that not only has the GPLv3 not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with more and more projects choosing permissive licenses these days.  The viral licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is increasingly dying off.
> that's why i'm against OSS bs. the success of Linux is tied with it's
> "viral" license. just look at FreeBSD: it started earlier, it has alot
> more to offer when Linux was just a child, yet it's "permissive"
> license leads to companies took FreeBSD and doing closed forks
> (juniper, for example).

The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was mostly consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using open source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release source pushed linux ahead of BSD.  But now that companies are more used to open source and actually releasing products based on open source, like Android or Juniper's OS or llvm, they're releasing source for permissive licenses also and products make a lot more money than consulting/support, ie Samsung and Apple make a ton more money off Android/iOS than Red Hat makes off OS support contracts.

So the writing is on the wall: by hitching themselves to a better commercial model, permissive licenses and mixed models are slowly killing off the GPL.  I wrote about some of this and suggested a new mixed model almost five years ago:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing

What I predicted has basically come true with Android's enormous success using their mixed model, though I think my time-limited mixed model is ultimately the endgame.