We did pay for it... most of us bought this multi-hundred dollar device, which had the cost of R&D figured in. That's the part most people here aren't getting. I understand the desire to keep things closed if there's code that's being used in future generations, or exposes "trade secrets". But blaming it on cost or "potential support issues" for a device they're no longer developing or supporting is bogus.

As for the petition, I'll be adding this little "financial incentive" statement in to mine:

Not releasing this code, in what is now an end-of-life development line, will be a clear sign to me that Nokia is using the Roman tactic of poisoning the well. If that happens, Nokia devices will be far less desirable to me. It would likely influence my future purchases, where I would strongly lean away from purchasing future Nokia products.

If they get that message often enough, it may just sink in that how they treat past customers will affect future sales.

Really, if they don't open-source the N900 and the future "N950" when/if it comes out has the same deal, how many people will avoid buying it because of that? How many more sales of the N950 (and the N900) would they have (had) if they were to open key parts? There are several people here that didn't buy the N900 strictly because of problems with getting support and/or source for closed components in the N700/N800 product lines (and were quite vocal about their reasons... isn't that right gerbick? )