Your argument makes no sense.
I am not asking Google to release the source code of their apps. I
assume you understand that this is what open source means?
I am just asking Google to make the binaries (apks) of their apps
available on the Android Market for everyone to freely download. These
can be closed sourced. All the pay for apps on the market are closed
sourced and most of the freeware too.
Coming to why your argument makes no sense. The reason is:
Your dad's company makes an application, but they don't release it in
the public. That is fine. This is their own decision. However, your
dad's company doesn't make the same application for every other mobile
phone OS out there. They also don't make it freely available for every
other mobile phone OS out there. They don't only restrict that
application for their OWN mobile OS.
Can you see the logic in that? Neither can I.
Again, Cyanogen was in no way changing the source code of these apps
(the code isn't available in the first place). Neither was he reverse
engineering the apps. All he was doing was distributing the apps with
the rom. These apps are already freely distributed by Google for every
other phone OS. If Google has a problem with a 3rd party (Cyanogen)
distributing their apps, why don't they distribute the apps
themselves? Why neglect your own OS? Why are they not available on the
That brings me to the argument that Android is just a linux OS. The
modifications that Google makes with their closed source apps is not
Android, but a "Google Experience" device. Fine. Let's believe that
for a second and just take it at face value.
So, Android, a mobile phone OS, is not supposed to come with the
Google apps. Google does us a favour by including them, but they are
not in Android's licensing agreements. This is fine.
Then why not make the Google apps available for the Android OS?
They are already available for WM, Symbian, Blackberry, iPhone, etc.
Even normal java based phones! Why not make the apps separately
available for the Android OS?
Why neglect your child? Why deprive your child of the tools that all
the other kids are using? The same tools your OWN company makes?
As I said, it boggles the mind.
On Sep 29, 2:11 am, Andrew Hays <m...@andrewhays.net
> Your argument makes no sense.
> They don't include the apps because they don't have to. It's their
> application. My father's company has an android application that they
> didn't release to the public because they want it to stay "in-house." More
> power to them (iPhone can't do that when it's locked). The reason they
> don't release their own applications as open source on their own OS is
> simply because they don't have to. It's not our right to receive the apps
> as open source just because we bought their phone. Not *everything needs to
> be open source. The apps are restricted because they don't want them
> getting out, plain and simple.*