Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

There's a point that seems to be being missed here, and that is that while the N900 doesn't by default run completely free software, the hardware is broadly accessible - Open, to that point that if you wish, you can completely wipe the existing operating system and start out with something 100% opensource like Mer.

To me, this is the revolutionary step that Nokia, and no other mainsteam manufacturer (to my knowledge) has taken. If you want to port VLC over, go for it! If you want to port Pidgin, great! Want to figure out a way to tether your laptop via bluetooth or wifi, Nokia won't stop you.

In contrast, Apple will say "I'm sorry, but that app replicates existing functionality, regardless of whether your app does that better or not." Even Google/HTC has worked to prevent tethering apps from being allowed on North American versions of the G1. Certainly none of these manufactures will provide an easy path to flashing your phone with an entirely different operating system, and such behavior may actually be a breach of contract.

Overall, I care more about Open Hardware than I do about Open Software, because you must first have access to the foundational equipment before you can worry about programs to make it do new and exciting things. I get mildly excited that Nokia has announced plans to make Symbian 100% open source, but since I'm not going to be able to recompile my own distro of it and successfully load it onto my N97 any time soon, and since I need a developer certificate to even load my own software I'm not rushing out the door. However; being able to use and program all the parts of my N900, just like I would a computer (even one that comes with Windows preinstalled) does make me excited, and does greatly serve the open source community, which till now has had little to really look forward to in mainstream devices.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Perhaps a 4b) would be to suggest the automatic opening up of EOL-d components by a defined procedure (or was that what you meant?).

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

As to the media player, it is just the UI that is closed. It is dead simple for even a non-developer hacker-type like me to write a quick-and-dirty replacement UI. Honestly, I think this is Ideology and Religion here, which is why you won't get many actual developers on the "open up the UI" bandwagon.

For other things openness is much more important. If you were to ask, like lardman, "So how do I auto-focus the camera in Fremantle," and you got, "you'll have to wait for us to reveal that info," you might have more of a valid complaint against closed source components then...

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

How do we know that the bugs and "fixed in Fremantle" situation that occurred with Diablo and the n8x0 NITs won't be repeated with Fremantle and the N900?

This is my hope as well, but, being realistic, what reason do we have to think the situation won't happen again. We already see signs of it from statements like: "sorry, we realize it's an unfortunate situation, but we didn't have the resources to fix in time for initial launch" and "the Maemo Devices team is focused in the Maemo 5 release and any resource available jumps to Harmattan". I, for one, (because I realize the challenges of adding 3G telephony to Maemo among other BIG advances in the platform, not as a reflection of the Maemo team) wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few bugs in Fremantle.

I thought Nokia already indicated they wouldn't let developers cross the divide by signing NDA's. Or maybe you're referring to some different here??

What has been the success rates of previous attempts to do this? Isn't it limited or inconclusive (still waiting on TI graphics drivers)?

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Speaking strictly about the OS (meaning the kernel + drivers + infrastructure userland (bin utils) + basic libraries + dev tools), I definitely want THAT to be full open source. Why? because OSes should be commodities, not "value bearing products".

I would even throw the API/ABI/user-interface layer into there, but that's a harder sell (at least one company makes good money focusing on this layer (Apple); on the desktop/laptop level, that's pretty much where their value is).

At the "platform level" (Ubuntu, Maemo, the OS X that is on the CD, etc.) ... I don't think there's any good reason at all to insist, in an ideological way, that the entire platform has to be 100% open source. Entities (companies or individuals) have a right to do more than just trade in commodities. They have a right to create value, and charge for the value that they've created.

Anyone can take Linux, GnuBinUtils, X, and GTK+ and bundle it together into a commodity distribution.

But if I want to create a value-added distribution, with some basic and/or killer applications ... and use those killer apps as my "value add", and thus charge for my distribution ... who are you (the generic "you") to tell me I don't have the freedom to do that?

If you don't want the apps, you're free to go with any of the other commodity distributions out there. Go for it. I wont lose any sleep over it.

If you want my value added apps, tough luck. They're my apps. You only get them under my terms (whether those terms are open or closed). If you don't like that, write your own to compete with mine, and distribute them under your terms.

Freedom isn't just getting what YOU want. Freedom is each person having the choice to make their own decisions. Your decision to buy X vs Y, and my decision to distribute MY code under license N vs M.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

If Nokia didn't the resource to fis many bugs, it's possible to transfer the package maintains a community member?

It's a good idea. I would like to add some functionality to the Media-Player-IU.
However, when I have time. :D

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Exactly, I'm really on Korbé's side on this but I can understand the Chinese ripoff argument...

How about: Nokia makes an ethical/public notice saying that we will release FOSS version 1 year from the binary for very specific bleeding edge stuff... That doesn't solve the trust issue but at least it gives us confidence that they really are doing it to preserve their research/market advantages and nothing else.

Re: Portrait mode use cases
 

yeah, they pretty much do.

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

Yes, we like this idea:

http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=30648

Re: Closed Source Packages in Maemo
 

You know, a while back, Nokia announced that they would make free licenses for their proprietary stuff that they're not using anymore (mostly wrt to patents).

Why not see what it takes to get them to apply this same logic to Diablo's source code. Anything that is still closed, but no longer in use (in its current-to-diablo state), to be opened under an Open Source license (even if it's not GPL). Or do it like the Qt licensing: as long as you do Open Source things with it, you can use it under an Open Source license; if you want to do non-OSS stuff with it, you need to pay for a license to it.

I think, in general, that would be a good model for Nokia to adopt. As Maemo N+1 becomes available, take the parts of Maeno N that Nokia owns, ESPECIALLY the parts that have been superseded or deprecated, and open source them. Even if it's under a "Nokia OSS license" (like what Apple did with early versions of OSX) and not a Gnu license.

Though, because Maemo 5 isn't actually out yet, they might consider Diablo to still be "the current public Maemo" ... so might have to wait a few months for that.