Re: Ask the Council!
 

@misterc BME is responsible for control of the charging process. Modern battery chargers have different algorithms, based on what sensor inputs(timers, temperature, current/voltage fluctuation etc...) are used to determine and apply the parameters in real time.

In a laptop, that process is usually not within the operating system, but in mobile devices vendors use simpler batteries, and the control is delegated to the software for two reasons:

• price
• size

I would like to explore the possibility of implementing open source alternative to stock bme. It does not need to outperform the Nokia bme.

Re: Ask the Council!
 

Thank you for sharing the information.

Re: Ask the Council!
 

thank you for the clarification.

by performance, you mean the time it takes to recharge the battery (in whole or in part) or is there anything else?
that's possibly made up by the aptitude to regulate the currant?

could the battery explode if it is charged too long?
there were rumours about laptop batteries that had that problem, a few years ago, i believe.

Re: Ask the Council!
 

Both are pretty much debunked in the bug report's comments, there just isn't any interest from the copyright owner to open the code.

Charging the N900 seems to be straightforward enough (comment #44). For the N8x0s, OpenWRT has a kernel-side implementation (which I tried a couple of times and seemed to work, and didn't blow anything up even). No idea about the 770.

Re: Ask the Council!
 

I'd like to ask a question to the council:

Why is Epitaph being allowed to promote his 'app' here on TMO, considering that he's clearly breaking the terms of the GPL?

Just one example (of many): Contained in the 'app' is the Bash binary. The GPL states that if you are going to redistribute GPL code, you must make the source of your app available.

He was hosting the app on Sourceforge, but it was removed from there - possibly due to me reporting it.

He has repeatedly refused to make the source available.

I'd like to know why maemo.org allows his thread and his signature here? By not taking any action, they appear to be condoning it.

I'm personally interested in this as it seems to go against FOSS principles, and as someone who has contributed time and effort to the open-souce world it makes me angry he gets away with it.

Thanks for listening.

Re: Ask the Council!
 

I second the question, especially after the threats by epitaph.

Re: Ask the Council!
 

Can we just ban and clean him and delete his thread? Or is that too draconian for his misdeeds?

Re: Ask the Council!
 

It's possible that I missed something but has any ground been made with regards to my question above?

Re: Ask the Council!
 

Lately, a possible source of Pali's problem has been "revealed" - he's using kernel.org kernel sources (with maemo kernel diffs attached + kp diffs at top of it), not maemo kernel + kp diffs.

It was suggested, that this may result in packages interface going crazy (by using debian packaging criteria, instead of maemo ones). Although, keep in mind that it's only guesswork and it's *not* confirmed. Some people, including me, suggested that easiest way to check it, is Pali switching his method to maemo kernel + kp diffs and see if this fix problem.

Also, of course, You were right about kp42 being in extras - my info was not actual one. Still, I think that we both agree it doesn't depreciate rationale behind my arguments ;)

---

Of course I also "second" jedi request - I'm glad that someone finally point that problem. Mentioned "individual" is violating GPL for long time, completely ignoring (or even showing hostility to) request to comply with GPL. Same happened with "his" set of scripts, containing work of others without giving proper credits. Not to mention overall trolling behavior...

Re: Ask the Council!
 

@Estel:

If I change kernel-power tarball to http://repository.maemo.org/pool/mae...28.orig.tar.gz (but only for new version of kernel-power), will maemo.org package interface really working? Are you sure?

I think that your argument that package X does not have same tarball as package Y is not correct. (X=kernel-power; Y=kernel) Package kernel-power has nothing with package kernel. kernel-power is in Extras and kernel is in SDK. Both are in different repositories and both has dfferent names.

So this argument is like that "Package bash3 must have same orig tarball that telepathy-gabble". Both packages are in different repositories and both has different names. And no problem with packages bash3 and telepathy-gabble.

Can somebody from Council comment my post? It is true? I think that each package can have its own orig tarball. Why not?

---

Now I see that I'm maintainer of all kernel-power packages. So this is last blocker for releasing new version!