> I'm not sure I see the point of opening an Android release after it's developed.
Why? I certainly see a point in having the source to the software running on devices being sold.
> It defeats a primary benefit of open source software.
The primary benefit is having the source, being able to modify it and to build upon it. No OSI compliant license grants you the right to immediate access to the latest commits by all developers.
> And even then, on most models (HTC, Motorola), unless I'm willing to violate my warranty and root it or unlock the bootloader, I'm not able to actually use the source.
The decision is yours. I voided my warranty and I am very happy with 2.3.4 on my phone.
> This whole "Android is open!" thing seems largely for marketing
Things like Cyanogen Mod wouldn't be possible without this "Android is open!" thing. If that's marketing, then I love it.
Why? I certainly see a point in having the source to the software running on devices being sold.
> It defeats a primary benefit of open source software.
The primary benefit is having the source, being able to modify it and to build upon it. No OSI compliant license grants you the right to immediate access to the latest commits by all developers.
> And even then, on most models (HTC, Motorola), unless I'm willing to violate my warranty and root it or unlock the bootloader, I'm not able to actually use the source.
The decision is yours. I voided my warranty and I am very happy with 2.3.4 on my phone.
> This whole "Android is open!" thing seems largely for marketing
Things like Cyanogen Mod wouldn't be possible without this "Android is open!" thing. If that's marketing, then I love it.