[roflharrison]

Some people criticized AOSP because they believe the delayed release is unfair (a reasonable criticism). Other people (sheep) criticized them because they actually believed Google was never going to release more source or because needed an arguing point against the OS.

[zobzu]

Actually until Google releases the source you can never be sure if they're going to release it.

They release this time.. you and I can only hope that they keep doing it in the future. It wouldn't be all that surprising if it would go closed source (except for key partners) at some point (and except for the GPL content).

Specially when any company could just rip the source, make it nicer looking and release their own version of Android and close the source on that... oh look it has a name, it's called MIUI!

Imagine if many cheap Chinese manufacturers release decent phones with it, that cost 3x cheaper than the rest, and no Google stuff inside, no control, yada yada. Well, personally I'd get one :-)

[bad_user]

     It wouldn't be all that surprising if it would 
     go closed source

As with anything in life, there are forces that prevent them from doing that. Also, the whole point of open-source is the right to "fork" which trumps all other freedoms you might have.

Xorg came into existence because of disagreements with the XFree86 license, while XFree86 died ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.Org_Server#History

     Specially when any company could just rip the source

Few companies can do that because few companies have the resources to do it. Nokia is a monster amongst phone makers and they weren't able to make their own OS, even when their own survival depended on it. These companies using Android depend on base Android to remain open-source, they made an investment in Android because it was supposed to be an open standard, which is why Google must also play nice, otherwise they risk forks. And in case you haven't noticed, Amazon just forked Android, so it's not unheard of.

You see, forks from small players cannot survive because they'll lack the advantages of the main branch (especially the Marketplace). On the other hand, Google must play nice because a fork coming from an alliance between several of these players can kill the main branch.

    Imagine if many cheap Chinese manufacturers release 
    decent phones with it, that cost 3x cheaper than 
    the rest

Considering that most phone manufacturers are assembling their phones in China, what would prevent them from also releasing cheap phones?

Also, most people don't want cheap. Most people want reliable and affordable, which is why iPhones and Galaxy S2 are selling quite well, even though there are cheaper alternatives on the market, even from trusted brands. Consumers don't want the cheapest products, instead they want the best value/price ratio (as long as they can afford it). Making an analogy with cars, there's always going to be a big market for Audi, BMW and Mercedes. Some people even prefer to buy second-hand cars from these brands, instead of a cheaper but out-of-the-factory alternative. That says a lot.

[stouset]

> Also, the whole point of open-source is the right to "fork" which trumps all other freedoms you might have.

No. That is the whole point of free software. The point of open source is just that the source code is made freely available.

[hetman]

I'd like to understand why Google didn't use a copyleft licence.

[wmf]

Phone makers were afraid of copyleft for various reasons, mostly irrational. Also, copyleft probably wouldn't help Google's goal of getting as many Android devices in the market as possible.

[ConstantineXVI]

A viral license actually could have been a much more effective carrot/stick tool for Google vs. their current situation (early source access, carrier contracts, etc.). Play ball with us (Market, etc.), and we'll give you a full closed-source license. Otherwise, we expect to see full source of your modifications made available per the GPL.