https://www.channelfutures.com/wp-content/themes/channelfutures_child/assets/images/logo/footer-new-logo.png
  • Home
  • Technologies
    • Back
    • Analytics
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Cloud
    • Data Centers
    • Desktop
    • IoT
    • Mobility
    • Networking
    • Open Source
    • RMM/PSA
    • Security
    • Virtualization
    • Voice/Connectivity
  • Strategy
    • Back
    • Best Practices
    • Business Models
    • Channel 101
    • Channel Programs
    • Channel Research
    • Digital Transformation
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Leadership
    • Mergers and Acquisitions
    • Sales & Marketing
    • Specialty Practices
  • MSSP Insider
    • Back
    • Business of Security
    • Cloud and Edge
    • Endpoint
    • Network
    • People and Careers
    • Training and Policies
  • MSP 501
    • Back
    • 2020 MSP 501 Rankings
    • 2020 Hot 101 Rankings
    • 2020 MSP 501 Report
  • Intelligence
    • Back
    • Our Sponsors
    • From the Industry
    • Content Resources
    • COVID-19 Partner Help
    • Galleries
    • Podcasts
    • Reports
    • Videos
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
  • EMEA
  • Awards
    • Back
    • Excellence in Digital Services
    • 2020 MSP 501
    • Top Gun 51
  • Events
    • Back
    • CP Conference & Expo
    • Channel Partners Evolution
    • Channel Evolution Europe
    • Channel Partners Event Coverage
    • Webinars
  • Channel Mentor
    • Back
    • Channel Market Intelligence
    • Channel Educational Series
Channel Futures
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • Technologies
    • Back
    • Analytics
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Cloud
    • Data Centers
    • Desktop
    • IoT
    • Mobility
    • Networking
    • Open Source
    • RMM/PSA
    • Security
    • Virtualization
    • Voice/Connectivity
  • Strategy
    • Back
    • Best Practices
    • Business Models
    • Channel 101
    • Channel Programs
    • Channel Research
    • Digital Transformation
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Leadership
    • Mergers and Acquisitions
    • Sales & Marketing
    • Specialty Practices
  • MSSP Insider
    • Back
    • Business of Security
    • Cloud and Edge
    • Endpoint
    • Network
    • People and Careers
    • Training and Policies
  • MSP 501
    • Back
    • 2020 MSP 501 Rankings
    • 2020 Hot 101 Rankings
    • 2020 MSP 501 Report
  • Intelligence
    • Back
    • Our Sponsors
    • From the Industry
    • Content Resources
    • COVID-19 Partner Help
    • Galleries
    • Podcasts
    • Reports
    • Videos
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
  • EMEA
  • Awards
    • Back
    • Excellence in Digital Services
    • 2020 MSP 501
    • Top Gun 51
  • Events
    • Back
    • CP Conference & Expo
    • Channel Partners Evolution
    • Channel Evolution Europe
    • Channel Partners Event Coverage
    • Webinars
  • Channel Mentor
    • Back
    • Channel Market Intelligence
    • Channel Educational Series
    • Newsletter
  • REGISTER
  • MSPs
  • VARs / SIs
  • Digital Service Providers
  • Cloud Service Providers
  • CHANNEL PARTNERS ONLINE
 Channel Futures

Open Source


Open Source and Android: A History of Google’s Linux-Based Mobile OS

  • Written by Christopher Tozzi
  • April 25, 2016
A brief history of Android, Google's Linux-based, open source mobile operating system for tablets and phones, now under attack by E.U. regulators.

How open is Android, Google's Linux-based mobile operating system? That's a question European regulators are now asking as they level antitrust charges against Alphabet, Google's parent company. To gain some perspective on the issue, a brief history of Android and its role in the open source ecosystem is in order.

The E.U.'s beef with Android centers on claims that, although the mobile operating system is open source, it stifles healthy market competition in the regulators' view. That's mainly because Android devices require vendors to promote Google products and services, they say.

How did it come to this? How did a mobile operating system that's open source — and should therefore be a key balance for Apple's decidedly closed-source iOS — end up facing charges of monopolizing a market? The answers lie in part in the history of Android, Google's reluctance to pitch it as a truly open source (rather than just vaguely "open") OS and Android's awkward fit within the open source ecosystem.

The Rise of Android

So let's start at the beginning. In the broadest sense, Android's history dates to 2003, when a team of California entrepreneurs launched Android, Inc. Their initial goal was to develop software for digital cameras. In 2005 Google acquired the company and put the team of Android, Inc. developers to work building an operating system for phones that was based on the Linux kernel and adaptations of some other open source utilities. At the same time, Google courted industry partners to help launch what it saw as an important competitor to closed smartphone operating systems, especially Apple's iOS for iPhones.

Google's programming and partnership efforts came to fruition on November 5, 2007, when it announced Android to the world. The company billed the operating system as "the first truly open and comprehensive platform for mobile devices." At the same time, Google launched a partner network it had built to promote and distribute Android called the Open Handset Alliance. The next year T-Mobile introduced the first Android-based smartphone, the G1. In short order, Google's Linux-based operating system became a major contender in the mobile operating system market, in which Android powered eighty percent of devices by 2013. It has held that position into the present.

Open Source or Just "Open"?

Yet not all open source supporters welcomed this feat. Because Google and the Open Handset Alliance placed very little emphasis on the open source core of the Android platform, some open source advocates viewed Android as a threat to openness and interoperability more than an outsize example of open source's success.

The decision by Google and its partners to downplay the importance of open source to Android was no mistake — which helps to explain why regulators today are so reluctant to see the platform as truly open. From the beginning, Google was circumspect about advertising Android as a distribution of Linux. The company did not mention the Linux kernel in the official announcement of the platform in 2007. By 2009 Google engineer Patrick Brady publicly declared that "Android is not Linux," primarily because it does not include the standard "Linux utilities" (most of which were actually GNU programs, not the work of Linux kernel developers) and lacks support for the glibc C library. Instead, Android uses a customized C library called bionic, which is derived mostly from the BSD code base.

For the most part, Google executives even avoided using the term “open source” in describing Android, despite their extensive emphasis on the “openness” of the platform. To them, “open” referred to the collaborative nature of the development and marketing ecosystem surrounding Android rather than the code itself. Most other organizations that belonged to the Open Handset Alliance similarly stuck to the “open” term without referencing Linux or open-source software when Android was announced. Texas Instruments and Wind River were the only exceptions.

As for licensing, Google and its partners adopted permissive Apache-style terms for most of the Android platform. The Linux-based kernel code, which they could not legally switch from its original GPL license, was the only major part of the Android code base that remained subject to licensing terms that aggressively protected the openness of the code.

Hackled Hackers

Both politically and technically, the disconnect between Android and the mainstream open source community has irked many hackers since Android's launch, just as Android is annoying the E.U. today. At the time of the November 2007 Android announcement, critics began contending that the Apache-style licensing of most of the Android platform stunted the potential of Android to become a truly innovative operating system for mobile devices by encouraging more open source development in that market. One critic wrote:

Google has sacrificed an opportunity to encourage greater openness in the broader mobile software space. If Android was distributed under the GPLv2, companies building on top of the platform would have to share their enhancements, which could theoretically lead to widespread sharing of code and a more rapid acceleration of mobile software development.

Others complained that “the use of the Apache licence is the biggest problem with Android.” Such remarks reflected worries that the permissive licensing of most of the Android code meant that “manufacturers might fork the code road in a non-interoperable kind of way” by building their own Android variants without sharing their modified code with the Open Handset Alliance members or the open source community more broadly.

Google responded to such criticisms by requiring members of the Open Handset Alliance to agree not to “fragment” the code by releasing mutually incompatible variants of the platform. That mandate, however, did nothing to prevent companies that did not belong to the group from doing as they wished with Android. Nor did it placate users who argued that “if Android had just used the GPL (which prohibits forking), then this problem would have [been] avoided.”

Leading hackers have also been critical of the way Android incorporates FOSS code. Although Richard Stallman in September 2011 called Android “a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free software portable phone,” he lamented that Google had originally refused to release the source code of the non-GPL-licensed components of the platform. He also complained that Android makes it easy for hardware manufacturers and software programmers to incorporate non-free software applications into Android-based devices.

Android and Linux

For their part, Linux kernel developers excised the Android driver code from the kernel in 2009, a decision they said they were “so sad” to have to make. That change effectively divorced Android from the mainstream Linux kernel code base, a situation exacerbated by Google programmers' decision to develop their own solutions for tasks such as power management on Android rather than borrowing the code from Linux.

By March 2011 some critics speculated that Google might face legal action for having violated the GPL by forking the Android code base. Linus Torvalds dismissed such claims as “totally bogus,” and he has since expressed optimism that the Android and Linux code bases will eventually return to a state of mutual compatibility. Still, the unhappiness of many FOSS hackers with Google's approach to Android, and the practical lack of opportunities for collaboration that the forking of the Android kernel code has imposed, have been clear enough since Android's introduction in 2007.

Viewed against this historical backdrop, it is less surprising that regulators are now calling out a nominally open source operating system for monopolizing the market. While Android is certainly more open is most respects than iOS, Google has done a poor job of pitching its mobile OS in a way that has pleased anyone other than its partners. Had the company worked harder to collaborate with the open source community and promote rather than hide the open source core of Android, Google might not find itself so alone in trying to defend the platform today.

Some material in this post is adapted from my book For Fun and Profit: A History of the Free and Open Source Software Revolution, which is forthcoming with MIT Press. The manuscript is under revision, so devastating criticism and fawning praise are equally welcome.

Tags: Cloud Service Providers Digital Service Providers MSPs VARs/SIs Open Source

Related


  • cloud data
    Your Cloud Data Is Protected, But Is It Portable?
    Why flexibility and containerization are the new must-haves for cloud data.
  • Spinoff Company
    IBM Names CEO of New Managed Services Spinoff
    The former IBM CFO is well-known to those within NewCo.
  • JEDI lightsaber
    AWS Still Chasing JEDI, Blasts Trump Administration Again
    AWS still wants to get JEDI from Microsoft. And there’s a new alliance in town. Plus, an update from iXsystems.
  • CEO Andy Jassy during keynote at AWS reInvent 2020
    AWS Partners Flooded with New Capabilities, Opportunities at re:Invent
    Channel head Doug Yeum introduced services, competencies and more ways for the channel to team with the cloud provider.

4 comments

  1. Avatar Bruno Dantas April 28, 2016 @ 4:02 pm
    Reply

    The GPL does not prohibit
    The GPL does not prohibit forking.

  2. Avatar DrorHarari April 28, 2016 @ 9:03 pm
    Reply

    I really don’t like the tone
    I really don’t like the tone of this post. For starter, why include such a dumb and obviously wrong quote such as: “if Android had just used the GPL (which prohibits forking), then this problem would have [been] avoided.”? GPL does not prohibit forking in any way. As long as you adhere to the license, you can fork to your heart content (as millions are doing on GitHub and elsewhere).

    GPL did not prevent the forking of MySQL into MariaDB, Percona and other variants even though the license for the MySQL source is controlled by Oracle, the company that never really got open source or free software.

    Then the claim that Android is not open enough is also laughable. Amazon, CyanogenMod and many others have forked Android, building on top of the enormous work that Google and its partners did with Android (who in turn built on top of other’s great work such as the Linux kernel). Pretty soon, Microsoft will also have their fork of Android also building their Microsoft-specific services version of Android.

    The Western culture is in the midst of a cancerous entitlement plague. For some reason, people think their are entitled for the benefit of other’s hard work just because they think or say so.

    There has never been such a successful and popular operating system and ecosystem like Android and this is precisely because Google has been very prudent and balanced in its decisions. On one hand, it had to maintain platform coherence so that developers can still manage to develop for the platform without having to own all phone types just to verify it works on them all (still a challenge but under control). On the other hand, it had to cater to the need of different device manufacturers, each of whom wants to differentiate their device to sell more of it.

    Who is it exactly that suffers from Android’s aptly open nature? It certainly is not device manufacturers who get reduced manufacturing and support costs. It is not the millions of mobile app developers who have a stable platform for materializing their dreams. It is also not the general public who can buy great Android phones from sub-$100 and up.

    • Avatar Christopher Tozzi April 29, 2016 @ 6:17 am
      Reply

      Re: the GPL, there is a
      Re: the GPL, there is a bigger story I want to tell about the tendency to treat the GPL as an omnipotent solution to all of open source’s problems. The quotes are examples of that perception, but in this snippet of material (taken out of the context of the much larger project) that was not obvious. This should have been made clearer here.

  3. Avatar DrorHarari April 29, 2016 @ 6:44 am
    Reply

    Good to hear Christopher. GPL
    Good to hear Christopher. GPL is great and it has done much to make open source stick at a time where BSD (for example) was just used as a way to grab high quality software and make it proprietary (see Apple wiht OSX and Microsoft with the TCP/IP stack). However, times have changed and today many companies are realizing the benefits of open source and thus licenses such as BSD and Apache do not need the “big stick” of GPL to be effective. This is why I cringe when I hear people whine about this or that product using Apache (as ‘not really open source’).

Leave a comment Cancel reply

-or-

Log in with your Channel Futures account

Alternatively, post a comment by completing the form below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

  • Dell Technologies Expands PowerProtect Portfolio, Embraces Data Protection Priorities
  • Wipro, Navisite, 2nd Watch Bolster Cloud Service Portfolios
  • IBM Cloud for Telecommunications to Rely on Integrators Right Away
  • WANdisco Partners Get First Formalized Partner Program

Galleries

View all

New, Changing Partner Programs: AWS, Tech Data, Avaya, Verizon

January 11, 2021

Industry Perspectives

View all

The Right Data Migration Tool Helps Schools Move to Cloud During COVID Crisis

January 19, 2021

Cloud-Based CRM: What SMBs Need to Know about Backup and Recovery

January 19, 2021

Cybersecurity: What to Expect in 2021

January 19, 2021

Webinars

View all

Blueprint for a Scalable MSSP Practice in 2021

January 21, 2021

Who’s Behind the Mask? Hacker Personas Explained

January 26, 2021

How Managed Hosting Providers Thrive with the Alternative Cloud

February 24, 2021

White Papers

View all

Why Subscription Business Model

January 15, 2021

The Ultimate MSP Guide to Sales Efficiency

January 14, 2021

Eight Reasons Why MSPs Need IT Industry-Specific Sales Tools

January 14, 2021

Upcoming Events

View all

Channel Partners Virtual

March 2, 2021 - March 4, 2021

Channel Partners Conference & Expo

November 1, 2021 - November 4, 2021

Videos and Fastchats

View all

FASTCHAT: How SOAR Eliminates Security Challenges and Elevates Service Provider Revenues

January 6, 2021

Happy Holidays from Channel Partners & Channel Futures!

December 21, 2020

FASTCHAT: How Old, Unpatched Technologies Are Creating New Security Threats for MSPs and Their Customers

December 3, 2020

Twitter

ChannelFutures

.@Carbonite Migrate uses real-time replication to move workloads to #cloud with minimal risk and near-zero downtime… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

January 20, 2021
ChannelFutures

Backup and recovery is essential for #cloud-based CRMs @ConnectWise #SaaS #dataprotection #cloudbackup #databackup… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

January 19, 2021
ChannelFutures

You an #MSSP looking to avoid a #SolarWinds-type breach? @Asigra, @Barracuda, @CynetSystems give advice. Don’t blam… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

January 19, 2021
ChannelFutures

What to expect in 2021 @Webroot #cybersecurity #MSP #remoteworkforce #remoteworking #Carbonite… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

January 19, 2021
ChannelFutures

From #itautomation to #workfromhome, a look at 2021 trends from @BitTitan. dlvr.it/RqwFZg https://t.co/EkCeJVNAPo

January 19, 2021
ChannelFutures

Are you helping your clients with #cloudgovernance? Now is the time. @CloudSphereAI @fortanix @MontyCloudInc… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

January 19, 2021
ChannelFutures

.@StratusAwaysOn announces new #partnerprogram for VARs. #edgecomputing dlvr.it/Rqvrxf https://t.co/vcLw8e4Ob6

January 19, 2021
ChannelFutures

bit.ly/3bSd4nD twitter.com/DigiRobot/stat…

January 19, 2021

MSSP Insider

Newsletters and Updates

Sign up for The Channel Report, Channel Futures Update, MSP 501 Newsletter and more.

Live Channel Events

Get the latest information on the next industry-leading Channel Partners event.

Channel Partners Online

Want more? Find more channel news and analysis on our sister site, Channel Partners.

Media Kit And Advertising

Want to reach our audience? Access our media kit

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • Channel Partners Online
  • Channel Partners Events
  • MSP 501
  • MSSP Insider
  • IoT World Today
  • Webhostingtalk

WORKING WITH US

  • Contact
  • About us
  • Advertise
  • Newsletter

FOLLOW Channel Futures ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2021 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.
This website uses cookies, including third party ones, to allow for analysis of how people use our website in order to improve your experience and our services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of such cookies. Click here for more information on our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.
X