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).

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.

>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.

I like Ars, but today's Ars is less Anandtech and more Verge. Which is to say, they indulge in their fair share of link-baity gadget-blog-type posts. They're not beyond redemption by any means, but the sad truth is that Ars doesn't always do the kind of in-depth analysis that they once did.

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?

The glass code is an application running on top of the kernel.

ah ic. Thank You. So what is point of releasing the kernel code when no one has the glass code?

They are legally required to release the kernel code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

Okay, Thank you for all your help in helping me understand. From what I understand, this article was written by a clueless writer that wanted to jump on the 'glass' bandwagon. He falsely claimed that google released glass source code when what Google actually released was kernel code that means nothing to developers and it was code that Google was legally required to release.

Instead of letting this article die off, some people in HN were equally clueless and upvoted this article because of the misleading title. They upvoted either without reading the article, or read the article and did not have the technical ability to detect the bullshit.

This article should not be trending on the front page.

Saying that the release means nothing to developers is probably more of an exaggeration than the headline in question.

Even if it is legally required it is still interesting that it has been done for those who are following the device.

I'm guessing the code release contains drivers etc. specific to the device, which would be very useful for hacking.

(Note also that they explain that the entire stack's code wasn't released early in the article.)

I can't upvote this enough

Once it became the top comment on this discussion, further upvoting would be redundant.

> 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

Can you elaborate? Which parts are missing?