maemo.org - Talk - Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)

- Alternatives (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=26567)

Re: Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaffa (Post 261579)

Ignoring the rest of your post for the moment (which seems to have gone slightly off the reality wagon), Nokia sell devices. Mer uses lots of Maemo open source components.

Why would Mer reusing Nokia-shipped closed-source binaries for N8x0 releases "destroy them", or be a viable competitor to Maemo 5?

Dude. I was trying to be funny in that last bit. If you were to ignore anything in that post, it would be the last bit where I was being silly.

Re: Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stskeeps (Post 261584)

This is -me- asking, what we need to put our focus into looking at trying to make work in Mer. All Nokia has asked for, is a list... Why we're asking for reasoning, is to make it possible to prioritize our time in determining where it's even worth spending time on trying to integrating the closed source bits.

Thanks for clarifying. It seemed like you were saying Nokia was asking for justification, and I didn't understand. This makes more sense.

I'm much more of the Ubuntu mindset, as opposed to the Debian mindset. If Nokia or nVidia only has binary blobs to give me, I'm not going to stick up my nose and say, "I can live without that functionality, if it means my device can be truly free!"

However, I know that there are people who do have a free-or-nothing attitude, and I respect that. Again, I like how Ubuntu does it. They don't install the non-free binary drivers by default, but they don't make it difficult to install them, either.

For instance, I would like the GStreamer DSP stuff and the Hantro encoder, but I know it's not strictly necessary to have it...

Re: Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by qole (Post 261587)

Dude. I was trying to be funny in that last bit. If you were to ignore anything in that post, it would be the last bit where I was being silly.

Thought you may have been. The whole country's broken at the moment (no, I don't know why either) so maybe it leaked into my brain.

Re: Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benson (Post 261581)

Of those, Flash is the only one that needs additional closed components.

Emphasis on "needs".

Quote:

There are ways to handle the Operator Wizard's role (possibly even ones that aren't broken by default, and can have their database updated when a problem is found with it)

Are there any open source operator connection string databases already available? Would it have to be compiled (in the literal, rather than computing sense)? Is there a Hildonised UI for a front-end?

Presumably the use of Network Manager could help here, especially with the efforts Ubuntu are touting for 3G & Bluetooth access.

Quote:

several open-source handwriting input methods, and IIRC xvkbd can do completion, so the code's out there.

None of these are cheap though, or trivial to integrate to hildon-input-method.

Quote:

And unless I'm mistaken, Mer already includes (i.e., steals from existing Maemo install) bme.

...which isn't an option for an end-user flashable image.

Quote:

You didn't mention it, but I'd put Skype with Flash; those are the two things I can see that have substantial impact on end-users and don't have plausible replacement paths.

I purposely left Skype off as, without investigating it further, figured it should be installable off the network, and doesn't require anything in the FIASCO image.

Quote:

As interim components until we get some of those worked out, I'm not averse to other things, but I don't see them as very important.

But even interim components need to be in the list, no?

Re: Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stskeeps (Post 261584)

OK, I really have to defuse this one, sorry :) This is -me- asking, what we need to put our focus into looking at trying to make work in Mer. All Nokia has asked for, is a list[1]. No justifications, just what we think would be useful and what we would want to distribute, and to isolate early on as possible to see what would be possible to distribute, both of Nokia applications and 3rd party code.

They are doing us a huge favour through this opening, - allowing Mer on tablets to accelerate to Fremantle-level functionality so when Fremantle (and RX-51) comes out, N8x0(W) (and maybe even 770) will have quite similar functionality.

Why we're asking for reasoning, is to make it possible to prioritize our time in determining where it's even worth spending time on trying to integrating the closed source bits.

Yes, we are. The closed bits stuff is added value to make it a more viable backport of Fremantle functionality, so people doesn't have to sacrifice functionality of their tablets. For my sake I could live with HW interfacing closed source bits, but some people are more picky :)

The open source replacements question is to make us aware what things people would agree on would be good to include in base firmware images, or things that could be useful to spend time on integrating, - to see what people want and what they can live without.

Thanks, your explanation is good. Yes, and the request to Nokia has to be judicious. For example, for things like Flash and Skype, Nokia may not have the ability to grant the request since they are downstream themselves and may or may not want to pass along the request upstream. There have to be considerations to Nokia's perspective in the request, but there should be some cooperation because it is in their interest to prevent a backlash from perceived abandonment of legacy NITs. Also, you can factor in considerations like the efforts in Ubuntu to get some open component for Flash/my tube for ARM.

These comments are also the good reason why there is benefit to having two versions of Mer. One for the backport to legacy NITs and one for more open version. It is beneficial that there will also be a more open version so making a request for a closed component does not preclude a version that might include an open component and we will not be in an either/or situation.

Re: Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by qole (Post 261575)

Why are we being asked to justify every closed-source component?

Because otherwise you are breaching the licenses of the software you want to use?

We asked the Mer team to list the *3rd party* closed source packages they need, since they don't belong to Nokia and therefore we need to make sure the owners are fine with the deal.

For instance, Flash belongs to Adobe and Skype belongs to Skype Inc. The agreements signed with these companies are framed for official releases going through a quite demanding quality process. If Nokia would let the Mer team (or whoever) grab those binaries for other purposes then those agreements would be in trouble, affecting e.g. the negotiations for Fremantle.

EDIT: By the way, forget about an official endorsement on 3rd party applications. 3rd party platform components essential to get the hardware running are a different and more feasible story.

Quote:

I would think it would be a more simple case than that; can we have the closed source bits for Mer? Yes? Thanks!

This is more or less what we have already said about the closed source components owned by Nokia:

We don't see any problem with the idea of redistributing Nokia owned
software to owners of Nokia devices, and the question to be decided is
only the best way to do it.

Quote:

It seems weird that Nokia is saying, "Yes, you can have closed source bits, but you have to work for it; you have to justify each one -- why do you need that one? And why do you need that one? Are you really, really sure you need that one? Show me how much you want it. Oh, come on, you can live without that one."

Nokia has never said anything like that.

Re: Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

Supposedly, Adobe is in alpha/beta stages with flash for ARM V6 and V7 with an estimated release of this summer. I realize it will still be closed source, but it would at least be freely downloadable without the Nokia middleman at that point.

Otherwise, I think we really just need the sound components and if someone would like to steal functioning 3D video drivers which Nokia doesn't even seem to have that would be nice too.

If someone could rewrite WINE to work on ARM with Windows Mobile compatibility that would be stellar too. ;)

Re: Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by neatojones (Post 261622)

Have you a source which says it'll be freely downloadable? For what platforms? What calling conventions? Which EABI?

Having the ARM code isn't the end of the matter, even if it was freely downloadable (which I've seen no evidence of plans for)

Quote:

and if someone would like to steal functioning 3D video drivers which Nokia doesn't even seem to have that would be nice too.

Well, Nokia have something approaching them. They just can't release them. And steal them from whom, exactly?

Re: Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaffa (Post 261625)

Well, Nokia have something approaching them. They just can't release them. And steal them from whom, exactly?

From Nokia, of course. They have them, after all. :p

Re: Mer v0.7 release, and community firmware contents discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by qgil (Post 261619)

We asked the Mer team to list the *3rd party* closed source packages they need, since they don't belong to Nokia and therefore we need to make sure the owners are fine with the deal... This is more or less what we have already said about the closed source components owned by Nokia:

We don't see any problem with the idea of redistributing Nokia owned
software to owners of Nokia devices, and the question to be decided is only the best way to do it.

Nokia has never said anything like that.

Thanks Quim. Between you and Stskeeps, I've got it all straightened out in my head now.

This seems much more sane now that I understand that the Nokia request is about third-party components, and the justification for Nokia components is a request from the Mer team, not Nokia.