The GPL requires that sort of thing, most other open source licenses do not. The Apache license covers what you can do with the source when it has been given to you.
> I have difficulty seeing how "I'll show you the source at some point in the future, when it's convenient for me to do so" is in any meaningful way open source.
Microsoft could release the source code to Windows tomorrow but say you have no right to modify it or distribute the modifications. Just because you've been given the source doesn't mean it's open source. Furthermore, if you haven't been given the source, there isn't anything to say about it. In this case, you are not entitled to the source just because you have the binary.
The GPL requires that sort of thing
If you accompany your binary release with a "written offer", you can actually postpone the source release. The GPL doesn't give a deadline either.
People are trying to make this a licensing issue, when it definitely it is not.
You can always fork Android, and Google cannot sue you for patent infringement (courtesy of the Apache license). The problem then is that the fish doesn't come free anymore -- which is the main gripe of people (i.e. the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open).
As for the "users cannot do whatever they want with their devices" -- they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?). If openness is really what people need, open devices will win because it is a free market (the Nexus S is doing well in my country btw).
I agree. In fact, that was my original argument.
> the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open.
I don't actually care if the development is not done in the open. What I actually care about is being ability to modify and install alternative versions of the software on my devices. I have had to throw away a lot of perfectly good hardware because the software was old and outdated with no way to update it. I've also had to deal with bugs with no way to fix them. Of course, none of this is Google's problem because they don't make the hardware.
> they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?).
The purpose of Free Software to build hardware? I think you've got something wrong there. As a programmer, I don't build hardware. I build software.
> If openness is really what people need, open devices will win
No, because most people are not programmers (or highly technical) and therefore have no need or ability to run alternative software. So no, openness will not win out. This appeal to the masses is not a good argument.
The purpose of Free Software to build hardware?
A valid point nonetheless. Search for any of RMS's talks and he'll bring this point up.
No, because most people are not programmers
Which is effectively impossible if the device running the software is locked down! Android, as Free Software, could be made effectively meaningless if I'm not able to tinker with that very software installed on my device. The FSF agrees, hence the GPL3. Telling me to make my own hardware, exactly what you said, doesn't help me at all.
I'm not saying that this is the wrong way to go about it...were I a Google exec and responsible to shareholders, I would have difficulty justifying a truly open process. But at this point, "open" has become a bullet point on a product box to attract a certain demographic.