Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

So... any way I can finally remove the default media player or browser in Diablo on my N800 so that I can use the purely open-source software like Panucci or Tear? ....and still have everything work well with them? (Like the RSS feed reader and file manager and so on?)

I could even replace the RSS feed reader (which I rather liked) and file manager (which I rather dislike) but is there any way I can remove them without breaking even more things? It would certainly be nice to be able to free up all those resources in favor of software I prefer.

Wait.. so stuff like mplayer is being ported over by Nokia employees? It seems like mplayer and other apps were initially being developed by folks that didn't have any knowledge of how to work with the drivers, though. Or did you mean that they jumped on-board after seeing the efforts started? I'm curious about this from the standpoint of trying to understand why more people weren't privvy to things like accellerated video, DSP programming and A2DP (which is STILL an issue). I just sort of expected accellerated API stuff to be much more easily available on a device intended to be open to developers from the start, is all.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

stlc45xx needs pretty recent kernel because of wi-fi stack it depends on. It is great we have it but it got dragged down by the rest of the hardware/software being not supported in recent kernel. For stlc45xx being effective it would also need to push everything from nokia kernel into linux-omap or mainline. It could be done now by community too but it takes far more time and effort then doing it by tighter collaboration with upstream when 2.6.21 was current. Still I see N8x0 linux kernel situation to be unfortunate, there are many things that could be done by community now but looks like there is few people with motivation and both time and skills to hack the kernel. I hope this will be better with N900 because OMAP3 is more open. I don't know about any other OMAP2 based device with community interested in maintaining support in linux kernel except us. Fortunately for OMAP3 there is plenty of them.

IMO dsme does not count. DSME got opened by ripping out closed parts and moving them into mce which is still closed. Mostly we got not so interesting (i.e already reverse-engineered) and almost empty shell. Again it is of course better than nothing but still I consider dsme to be 99% of 'too little too late' variety.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

I'm a Free Software "zealot"(some would call me this). I'll give my opinion on this as I think there's a good middle ground for all.

a) the CORE OS(kernel, basic userspac, compilers, drivers etc...) should all
be Free Software - there is no distinction here... less distinction infact
makes it far easier to reuse things from other devices and so forth thus
making it even more user apealing. And I'm not talking about binary firmware
here I don't mind that since I am aware that that runs on the hardware itself at
a much lower level - and would generally be a ROM. What do I see as usable
drivers. Drivers that will be easy to upgrade to a newer kernel version,
something that will not hamper the user to switch from one kernel to another.
It should not be a thin wrapper around a large blob like Nvidia/Ati. It should be
a proper driver that just hooks into the device - if the device needs a firmware,
load it in some way. Battery management should fit in this as well. Either
document how one could do this oneself or move this into firmware so that
there is no userspace thing at all

b) UI - as long as it is possible to replace it and still get everything else that's
running underneath, that should be Free Software, in a usable state I have
no problems if by default it comes with a closed UI. Infact the best would be to
have a GUI abstraction layer that would translate between all the various UI
intefraces(hey one can dream)

c) User facing things should be easiyl replacable without actually killing things.
If I don't want to use Conversations I should be able to use something else
that does things the way I want to. If I want to use an alternate phonebook I
should be able to do so. It should still all hook into the system though so
those api's and the backends should all be open and Free Software. Same
for example bookmarks and such. - yes differentiate it however you wish but
don't make it nearly impossible to replace things.

d) closed software - as long as it's possible to replace such software by those
who want to I have no qualms about it. Feel free to package Flash, Adobe,
whatever As long as I can remove it or replace it with what I want and still
have the proper functionality

Sorry if this is incoherent but I very rarely have any coherent thoughts ;)

I'd like to point out that I've been using Nokia products since 1998 or so(my first cell phone 5110 still runs way better than most things nowadays though I don't use it anymore). I've always used Nokia - why - because they make nice products for all ranges.

What I dislike about Nokia? They are one of the companies that want stronger patents and even software patents in the EU.

Does that make them evil/bad/good/etc...? No... it's how they are used to doing business. Hirring OSS developers - makes sense, means they'll do what they want them to do - i see nothing much benevolent in this just a logical business decission. Buying QT? well it's run on symbian for a while, maemo6 will be running it... again makes perfect business sense to get it so that things you want will be in.

Anyway I'm rambling so feel free to ignore this if you want ;)

Re: Portrait mode use cases
 

Are you for real ? :eek:

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Yes he is... what most people would consider open source is being able to see the code... That's all. Free Software is something else... but most people would associet free with as in beer. But there's something new that is a bit clearer: Freedom Software... same thing as Free Software.

So yes there are differences.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

@ruskie
No my friend, open source means not only you can look at the code. You can also use the code. You are restricted sometimes towards your intentions of making money of that code . Can you give an example of an application open source that you cannot use for free to back up your claims?

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

You clearly didn't understand what ragnar meant when he said that. Go back and read his entire post.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

What is there to understand? While I totally agree that nokia is entitled to release closed source in their own device featuring maemo, I only sanctioned a phrase that is totally wrong. Then ruskie also came in with his claim and I was responding to him with my last statement.
So again, ragnar's statement was wrong and so was ruskies. That is all.

No since I don't want to start/continue a flame I will continue no further on this idea.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Folks, simmer. I believe what he meant was that, sometimes, simply being 'open source' implies being able to view the source code.. even if the license if harmfully limited and prevents you from actually USING it (depending on your situation). On the other hand, if you mean Open Source (as in the Open Source Initiative (OSI) standards) then you're generally open to use the source code as long as you provide attribution, source code, etc.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

I replied already, but I'll reply again. I used my words incorrectly.

I meant that when maemo.nokia.com talks about an "open source operating system", it doesn't mean that it is 100% open source.

It is more of a statement like "This is an environmentally friendly product", i.e. that is something that has much environmentally friendly aspects. A statement of general intent rather than a statement of being 100% free.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

As followup: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Before judging, would it not be better to await the final version?

Before choosing between Maemo 5, Android and OpenMoko, I'll wait to see the list of packages containing:
- Name of package.
- Version of package.
- Package description.
- Name and e-mail of package maintainer.
- License. (FOSS or not FOSS).
- Package Dependencies.
- GIT or SVN link to source code.
- Etc...

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Funny that, I think one of the first things I took interest in and was able to discover was the degree of hw support mplayer in maemo had :)

DSP programming is on the wiki atleast.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Yes, I don't think they work on it any more but both ssvb (Siarhei Siamashka) and Ed_ (Ed Bartosh) work for Nokia.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Red Hat Enterprise Edition?

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

I think you can use centos instead, if you're not interested in the support options of rhel.
You'll have to come up with another example.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Only the Red Hat artwork and name not, because of trademarks. That isn't related to the source code.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

You can't discredit his example solely on the basis of an alternative. Flawed logic.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Centos is not RHEL. It's an RHEL redistribution.

If you want to use ACTUAL RHEL, distributed by RedHat, with all of the bells, whistles, and services, you'll have to pay.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

I get the feeling this debate could go on forever. While, in theory, I am in favor of complete open source software, in reality I am willing to pay for convenience or capability or credibility in certain cases. I am willing to pay for TurboTax in order to do my taxes because that capability does not exist in open source. Furthermore, if it did exist, I'm not sure I'd trust it.

If Nokia wants to add closed source applications to its devices, it then becomes a decision on my part. Is the total package I'm being offered worth the price and other trade-offs that come with it? After all, no one is saying the handset should be free or open although open source engineering exists.

Frankly, living in the US, the openness and cost of the OS is the least of my concerns. It doesn't take many months of a voice/data plan from any of our carriers to exceed the cost of an N900 or of Windows Vista Ultimate.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

qed.

If you want a real nokia device, with all the bells, whistles, and services, you'll have to pay, even if all the software is free and a chinese knock-off could emulate it.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Your point?

The point of the chinese knock-off argument is "why would Nokia, effectively, subsidize those chinese knock-offs by letting them use Maemo, and thus undermine people's incentive to buy Nokia devices with Maemo on them?"

Redhat is not in the same business that Nokia is in. Redhat wants to sell Linux support contracts, which get more market as Linux in general becomes more popular. Nokia wants to sell complete devices (not just hardware). Very different businesses.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

>>>> korbé wrote:
>>>> Ok, Architengi,
1) It's possible to make money with completely free (as free beer) and FOSS. (See Red Hat, Linalis, etc...).

>>> end of quote

I just don't want all my work to be open and free and to live from services (technical support or customizations), just because there is not the same money from that, so in the end I will have to look for a job.

All the developers that make their source code public will take the job and the bread from the hand of other developers.
For example: If Office is free, the developers of Quick Office, WordPerfect, even the MS Office will have to find another job.

For humanity's progress I love Open Source, like I would love no patents. But in todays world even the human genes (made by nature) are patented.
Now, the question is, the companies that researched and found that gene usage, can they get the money back from all that investment in research? The same with the code, if it is not closed and everybody has access to its source, will be the same interest for the companies to produce that code?


>>>

>>> ysss wrote:
>>> @korbe: some numbers to backup your claim, please?
it'd be a shame if y'all are wasting all this time and effort to discuss false assumptions of mythical proportions ;)

Yes, this is right. @korbe: do you have numbers or links to bacup your claim? "In computing, the majority of revenues come from: - Services, - Some custom features/sofwares developed for companys."

(for software companies the allegation that it can make money out of In computing, the majority of revenues come from:
"- Sale of hardware."
it is showing korbe does not understand what a software company is. We are not talking here about Apple or Nokia, but about software.)

Just my 2 cents... :)

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Technically you can install and use it without paying, it's the updates and support that you have to get your credit card out for. Plus, you can get all the source RPMs regardless of payment.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

You can download the 30-day Evaluation. I would say that's different than "install and use it without paying."

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

DaveP1, how dare you sir! Injecting more common sense into this thread. :mad:

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Evaluation refers to the subscription services. The installed system doesn't go poof and turn into a pumpkin when the 30 days expire.

This is academic of course, for unpaid use CentOS is a much saner alternative.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Simple example of something like that is PINE - you can get the source but you can't distribute modified copies. Only patches. I believe Elm is the same. Yet I think most people would consider this open source by any strech of the word. There's probably a few others. Basically anything that might restrict your use to: research only, non-commercial only, no distribution of changed binaries etc... would still be considered open source by most people.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

is this thread about open source or about free?

In my eyes thats not 1 on 1.. Why would all open source software have to be free?

But i guess if Nokia would open source everything but use a license that would prohibit commercial use of that software (then you have to by first another license, just like if you would have binaries only) i guess the "true open source" persons here are still complaining right?

My believe is that it could be good to make everything open source. (so that it is easily debugged and patches can be created better) but it doesnt have to be free. I am a developer (for a lot of open source projects, eclipse,apache) and i dont believe that every software needs to be free. Thats why i really dont like and avoid like the plaque GPL...
Thats really a horrible license.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

That fails clause 3 of the OSD:
and since there's no payment involved it doesn't apply here anyway.

Debian for example doesn't.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

I'm not talking about those who work with Free Software(as defined by the FSF) or Open Source(as defined by OSI). But talking about someone who never heard about it.

Yes if you limit yourself to that there's a lot. But consider this a collegaue of mine:

What do you consider open source -> I can look at the source and use it for myself - period. Nothing more or less... Similar thing when one mentions Free Software(without a definition) - I can use the software for nothing nothing more nothing less.

But yes if you know the definitions it makes a whole lot of a difference.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

It is rather rare these days. I blame Steve Jobs: The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently -- Nietzsche

The system doesn't go poof after 30 days of evaluation indeed. That is Microsoft behavior... :D still, the only reason Red Hat is proprietary is trademarks, and that is logical, because they must be defended for brand recognition. For the rest RHEL is completely open source. Even proprietary software Red Hat bought such as Netscape LDAP and GFS is open sourced. IMO Red Hat are good open source netizens. Heck, probably even good free software netizens. But again, you cannot compare them to Nokia, because they derive profit from different means.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

I'm reluctant to jump into this thread, but here goes! (Incidentally, I would prefer if it was called something like "closed-source versus open-source idealogy" or something, as upon first entering the thread I thought it would be the long-awaited list of which packages in Maemo 5 are open and which are closed). Anyway:

The thing that I find disappointing is that it seems that Nokia are scared to open the source for their packages (e.g. the media player front end) by the threat of competitors stealing them. However, what about the benefit of the community, and indeed other companies, being able to improve the packages? Brainstorming and submitting bug reports is all very well, but theoretically with the source available, people can improve the packages themselves, e.g. add portrait mode support and all the rest of it? Nokia can then ship the improved packages, ship more hardware, and make more money.

I'm not suggesting that they don't employ their own people to work on the packages, I'm just saying that by open-sourcing them, they can get the benefits of other programmers working on the packages without having to pay them.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

no, it doesn't.

pine does offer source code, and does of course allow it to be reused under the same license terms, what it does NOT allow is redistributing a modified version under the same NAME.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Uhm, let me repeat the clause with added emphasis:

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

i know.
i say again: pine does allow modifications and derived works. it also does allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
they just have different names than "pine". alpine for example.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

SubCore wrong... I'm the re-alpine coordinator(so I would consider myself knowledgable in this area). Alpine is licensed under the APACHE2 license which allows a lot. What pine is licensed is it's own PINE license which doesn't allow anything like that.

PINE != ALPINE yes... there is a historic link and quite a bit of code is the same but there are further changes that pine does not have.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

SubCore, from what you say it'd seem the license tries to function as a trademark protection.

But that is not the case. They do not allow one to modify the source and then distribute that as binary. See pine/faq/legal.html. This is pretty similar to DJB software (Qmail et al).

Alpine is licensed under Apache License, version 2 which is OSI approved. No clue if they had to ask permission from authors to relicense code under Apache License v2 or could do that right away.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Alpine is from the same authors so that's not a problem ;) UW ;)

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

That still doesn't enable you to use RH Enterprise, because you won't get any updates if you have no subscription.

And just because you found an alternative, that doesn't make his example moot.