@javispedro

So, to sum this up, when you say "open", you mean reverse engineered or source released by, in this case, Nokia?

And when you talk about openness of a system/OS/whatnot not being "a moot point", your main argument is how much easier it might make reverse engineering which might result in "open" components?

Finally, I assume the "openness" of MeeGo by itself, without any device, seen as a framework or something like that, is "pure open" with code that has either been developed from scratch or released without reverse engineering anything.

But as soon as MeeGo ends up on a device like the N900, this changes and depends on how many components have been reverse engineered (or where other vendors have stepped in with better/more open alternatives).

Clear distinctions of what is discussed would, hopefully, make it less likely to end up in discussions about something else. The "openness" of Fedora is irrelevant. The same goes for Ubuntu.

The "openness" of a platform like the N900 does matter when it comes to the effort needed to reverse engineer components (if your testament to this fact is to be taken at face value). This, then, has nothing to do with the "openness" of MeeGo, or Maemo for that matter. This is all about the effort needed to reverse engineer any component on any platform. I'm sure woody14619 can agree on this and you then have no reason to feel insulted since that's not what he's disagreeing with you about.

When it comes to the effort put into this (if you and your fellow developers have managed to, for example, pry open and reverse engineer the full GSM driver layer) I'm also sure that woody14619 agrees on a "Well done!" since that is the kind of effort he can appreciate, taking his experience into account.

So, less muddling of the water and w00t cookies for all!