I do agree with what he said, Android isn't as open as it seems. Google didn't release the Honeycomb code because it "wasn't ready", yet allowed manufacturers to ship tablets with a version of it on there. And he also made a point when he said that Android is more "source open". Nobody can really influence the code unless they work for the company or a company close to Google.

And Gcc isn't really a "new" software so it's not for this list, but it's definitely an important one.

This is not true. I know people that have contributed code to Android that don't work for Google (etc.) and that have their code on released devices now. Sure, someone may have already fixed the bug by the time you get to see the source code, but if the bug is obscure enough, your code is as good as anyone else's. (Also, features are probably always welcome.)

so a couple of guys fixed a couple of bugs. even if it were a thousand, bug fixes are not "influence" the code at all.

Cyanogen for example is much more open.

I'd argue that that is the big omission. Wherever you come down on Android itself, Cyanogenmod clearly meets the author's criteria for openness, is a technical standout in a new area and it has had a very big 2011.