[anamax]

>Maybe it is, but you really can't go around claiming openness when you don't provide it.

How does "closed Honeycomb" reflect on any of the code that you previously would have considered "open"?

Before someone commits code to an open-source project, that code isn't available. No one would claim that the existence of that unavailable code says anything about the openness of the available code. And that wouldn't change if the unavailable code was shared with some of the author's friends.

So why does "closed Honeycomb" have that effect?

[notaddicted]

What if the author in your example and his friends shipped the unavailable code as a consumer product and called it Android Smart Tablet?

They've been making a lot of noise for years about Android the open source software stack for mobile devices. Now they 're releasing mobile devices, calling it Android, basing it on Android, and keeping the source to themselves; Weak.

[anamax]

> What if the author in your example and his friends shipped the unavailable code as a consumer product and called it Android Smart Tablet?

Would you have not complained if they had called it "Banana" instead? Or, would you have complained when they open-sourced Banana because it was really Android.

They open-sourced a huge amount of code and you're complaining because they didn't open-source some other code because that other code has the same name?

Wowsers.