Google releases some Glass source code

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/google-releases-glass-source-code-declares-platform-open-to-hackers/

by coloneltcb • 13 years ago

283 127 13 years ago

arstechnica.com

wmf• 13 years ago

Misleading headline; they released the boring code and none of the interesting code.

ryderm• 13 years ago

> Android code is released in two parts—changes to the Linux kernel are released under the GPLv2 free software license, just as Linux itself is, while most of the code that makes Android recognizable to users is released under the Apache License. With Glass, just the Linux code has been released.

Agreed

suyash• 13 years ago

It's not misleading headline, it's just a problem with tech blogs, they probably read this news on HN and stole it and tried to make it sensational to get some cheap traffic. The don't understand the code or it's implications for that matter. What is released is kernel source code (which hardly any one cares about) vs source code for google glass framework (which would be more interesting).

DannyBee13• 13 years ago

I can't upvote this enough

songzme3• 13 years ago

What is the difference between kernel source code and the source code for google glass framework? I'm having a hard time understanding this concept. If they released their kernel code doesn't it mean they released their glass source code?

redthrowaway• 13 years ago

>It's not misleading headline, it's just a problem with tech blogs, they probably read this news on HN and stole it and tried to make it sensational to get some cheap traffic.

While that's generally how these outfits tend to work, Ars has built a pretty solid reputation for in-depth analysis and not having link-baity headlines.

sciurus• 13 years ago

Which is rather sad, coming from Ars Technica; they weren't always just another tech blog. E.G. Jon Stokes published fantastic pieces on computer architecture there, and Ryan Paul's coverage of open source was well-informed.

execve• 13 years ago

Can you elaborate? Which parts are missing?

Toshio• 13 years ago

That's nice.

Can we have the source code for Google Reader too, while we're at it?

blhack• 13 years ago

What was so special about google reader that you couldn't just code yourself? It's an RSS reader, right?

http://code.google.com/p/feedparser/

I wrote a website that read RSS feeds for me years ago using that. It's really straight forward...

timothya• 13 years ago

There are many other RSS readers out there that are open source; having the source of Google's wouldn't be much different. And the part that would be different is all the code to integrate it with Google's infrastructure, which wouldn't be particularly useful to anyone who doesn't run said infrastructure.

jmillikin• 13 years ago

Why? It would be useless to you; the effort required to write a web-based RSS client is as nothing compared to re-implementing all the internal infrastructure that Reader depends on.

If you want to run your own RSS client, starting with NewsBlur[1] or Tiny Tiny RSS[2] would get you much further than being able to see the Reader source.

[1] https://github.com/samuelclay/NewsBlur

[2] http://tt-rss.org/

venomsnake• 13 years ago

So they only released the Linux ... and now we can have Ubuntu for google glass.

On I side note - it is a sad world when the fact that device is unlocked is news instead of the norm.

pyre• 13 years ago

We've been living in that 'sad world' to a while.

brador• 13 years ago

Why not open source all the code? What does Google have to gain from closed sourcing even part of Google glass?

Someone• 13 years ago

Money.

Also, the Ars Technica article does not discuss what I suspect is the most interesting part of Google Glass: the code they run on their servers.

There, it's more or less the same story: they release commodity lower layers, but keep the more interesting upper layers to themselves, for the same reason: money.

betterunix• 13 years ago

There are three possibilities:

  1. Google wants to monetize the novel features of Glass
  2. Google is bound by licenses for the technology, and is unable to open source certain bits
  3. They will open source everything eventually, but decided to rush this bit for publicity reasons

jacquesm4• 13 years ago

There are lots more possibilities, but the one that I think makes the most chance is:

  4. Google is required to release the kernel code under the GPL

No such requirement exists for the other code.

The big pay-off for google is that to use glass you need to use google. If the devices were 'open' then you would not need google to use glass and they'd be in a cue-cat situation.

ritonlajoie• 13 years ago

Maybe to protect this product from the competition ? Why releasing the source code if they provide some good API ? I understand that open sourcing is better for us, the consumers, but Google is still planning to make money out of these glasses.

yitchelle3• 13 years ago

Hey Google, disrupt the industry and open source the hardware as well.

freehunter• 13 years ago

Disrupt what industry? Google is the only player right now.

NegativeK• 13 years ago

The consumer hardware industry.

There are a few shops that sell/release open source hardware, but I guarantee open sourcing Glass would make gigantic waves.

yitchelle3• 13 years ago

The industry for capturing data, the industry for ubiquitous information presence, the industry for augmented assistance for the disable, list could go on.

Imagine if IBM did not build the first PC with an open architecture, would it have caught on the way it did? Google should take the lead the open up the hardware and really make the glass affordable for everyone.

thechut• 13 years ago

Not sure why you are being downvoted. Google open sourcing Glass could bring on lots of manufacturers in very quickly and also create lots of derivative works. Google would theoretically have its core Glass software running on every device.

It's essentially taking their model with Android, which IMHO has been enormously successful, one step further. In two years time ZTE could be making 'The Reflector' a $100 version of Glass that has been been created from Glass' open designs. Of course their will be software modification as well, but theoretically just like Android, Google will remain at it's core.

I can see why Google will probably make more money by selling them for $1,500 a pop. But I think they could also make money by shear volume of increased search, maps, play store, etc. This seems to be inline with what they try to do now.

I hope that Google does not pull a Facebook and start forcing advertisements into everything. If that is the case it could be at the expense of the entire Glass platform which I think will be very cool.

jfoster2• 13 years ago

I think it's being downvoted because it's got very little information. It's a seemingly naive random thought about Google's go-to-market strategy for Glass and considers nothing about Google's businesses or the opportunity cost of taking that action. Your post is probably the elaboration that it needed to avoid being downvoted. (I didn't downvote - just trying to explain why someone might)

misiti37802• 13 years ago

dumb question here (and I do apologize for it) - but I never really understood how you can see someone is being downvoted. I know when I'm downvoted because I lose karma - How do you know what someone else is being downvoted?

cdibona• 13 years ago

As an FYI, the git repo is here:

https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/omap/+/glass-omap-xr...

doe882• 13 years ago

It's not as if they were making us a gift... As soon as they sold their first device it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel source code.

dmix• 13 years ago

Just out of curiousity, if they didn't release the code given the GPL2 license, could they be sued in private courts to release it?

jmonegro• 13 years ago

Probably more preventing them from selling it rather than forcing them to release it.

doe882• 13 years ago

I'm not a specialist at all of these questions but I would say that kernel modifications are not worth taking such a big risk. And if they wanted to avoid publishing the code of some parts of their kernel implementation maybe they could instead make a kernel module and in this case I believe it is accepted of not releasing the source code of the module.

But in any case as mentionned in other comments I believe the interesting code is more high level, or server side.

icebraining• 13 years ago

They could be sued, but only by copyright holders of Linux source code.

DannyBee13• 13 years ago

Technically, Google would only be required to make a written offer, and we could ship physical medium copies to folks who wrote them.

0x0• 13 years ago

But then the first recipient could post it online on github or whatever.

dllthomas• 13 years ago

It seems practically required, since the only thing such an action would by them is scorn.

shadowmint• 13 years ago

I dont care if I get down-voted for making a comment unrelated directly to this; Thank you.

You are my personal hero for today DannyBee, for speaking calmly and making sense on HN.

sc00ter• 13 years ago

So do you work for Google, or do you do work for Google? I only ask because in earlier comments you lectured on the correct use of terminology, yet having said explicitly you work for Google you now talk about the company in the 3rd person plural as if you are not an employee.

EGreg3• 13 years ago

Well if we are going to be technical about it, why is Google even required to make a written offer under the GPL? They can, for example, never release the source code for software that didn't make it (in binary form) onto the devices. Right?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePos...

Let's make this question more relevant ... if you write server code that isn't released 'to the public', but powers your website which is publicly accessible, must you release the source code if your server was "linked with" (whatever that means) GPLed code?

huhtenberg2• 13 years ago

They clearly planned for that, because if they'd preferred to keep it closed-sourced, they'd gone with BSD. Just like Apple did. And it's not like Google is lacking resources for making Glass run on BSD instead of Linux.

benatkin2• 13 years ago

Surprised it took me this long to realize that Ars doesn't have much better quality control than VentureBeat et al, but it's crystal clear now. Tim Bray's twitter is obviously unofficial, and the headline uses broadness and extrapolation to make it misleading in a way that makes it seem more interesting.

Farewell, Ars Technica of old...

hkmurakami3• 13 years ago

I've heard that Ars' commenters are of higher qualities than other sites. Does this still continue despite the decline of article quality that you describe?

rplacd• 13 years ago

I suspect it's true in general - it's the one thing that still draws me to /. No point of view doesn't get an impassioned defense thrown at it no matter the individual merit.

TazeTSchnitzel• 13 years ago

Did you see the "A-Z of Ubuntu" gallery recently? It was literally a few screenshots of Ubuntu variants and less than a paragraph under each.

benatkin2• 13 years ago

Nope, missed that.

tapsboy• 13 years ago

For completeness of the headline (specifically 'declares platform open'), Google needs to also make the Mirror API available to those, who are not part of Explorer Program, may be via a simulator.

wilfra• 13 years ago

Hey Saurik - don't take the hating so personally man. Google gave you Glass precisely because they knew you'd rock the boat and piss a bunch of people off (and get people talking about Glass in the process). You're doing a wonderful job of that. Be proud.

In reference to: https://plus.google.com/118343182830485155505/posts/ERUJ8e1y...

hkmurakami3• 13 years ago

Wow I totally thought this guy (linked in parent) was an actor when I saw him in last year's Google Glass ad campaigns, not a Google employee.

felipe3• 13 years ago

As a side note, that's a good example of my biggest problem with Glass as a product. Not even Google knows what to do with it, and they are expecting hackers to "show me something cool" -- Wait, what?? No, YOU TELL ME FIRST what Glass is supposed to do, then I might think about devoting some of my unpaid time to hack some "shit" for you.

Unless Google also open sources the Glass hardware, any "contributions" to their source code will be benefiting only Google and not the open source community.

LekkoscPiwa• 13 years ago

This reminds me of Steve Jobs iPhone first presentation and hackers jumping onto the platform. However, Jobs had vision and charisma to follow. This doesn't make me as excited.

rpearl• 13 years ago

Just throwing code over the wall is such a poor imitation of open source.

Develop in the open--reviews, patches, bugs, design discussions--everything should be visible. Let's not pretend that this is really what "open source" is about--it's about everyone making contributions, visibly, as they happen.

Anyone who takes this kernel and actually adds features is risking duplicating work or breaking future compatibility if Google ever decides to implement the same or otherwise conflicting features in different ways. This happens frequently with Android. Everyone is still stuck waiting on releases, and the fact that there is code involved is basically an afterthought.

cromwellian• 13 years ago

Judging by the threads, no good deed goes unpunished.

kybernetyk• 13 years ago

So it's open now but you're still not allowed to make money with applications? That's a strange definition of open to me.

new299• 13 years ago

I'm still betting it'll be largely impossible to run a standard Linux distro on the device without a massive amount of hacking.

The kernel will no doubt require binary blobs for OpenGL drivers (IIRC it's an OMAP CPU so this is likely) and because they decided they don't like glibc the OpenGL drivers on the device will be a pain to link against. I always find this annoying while hacking on Android devices.

Google releases some Glass source code

Related Stories