Lots of messages there, before I answer them individually, I think there is something important to understand from my point of view: I am not a FOSS advocate. I don't have any sort of religious adherence to an open software concept. I use FOSS, I've coded FOSS, sure, but simply as part of normal association with software in general. I'm not against FOSS, nor am I pro FOSS, it is one part of the software world.

So, I don't mind at all if a company decides to build on open software, while also developing on their own some closed components. I'm not a GPL3 kind of guy at all. If my FOSS adherence were to lie somewhere, perhaps BSD then. I would like companies to state their open vs. closed policy clearly, though, as doing otherwise might mislead volunteer efforts of contribution, but I don't mind at all if a company has closed software. I don't mind if a company is all closed either, as long as they are upfront about it.

When reading my messages, please keep that in mind.

My point of view in this thread has been about Jolla's transparency and their relationship to the community, or the movement as they like to say. I've been advocating added transparency helping them positively with that community relationship as well as with their business in general, while still in the early adopter phace (I agree the community will become less meaningful if they make it big time).

Certainly I think a part of that transparency is the give-and-take of a FOSS community, and Jolla's insistence on using words such as "truly open" for Sailfish (which is quite hard to reconcile fully with their FOSS participation) and "transparency" in their values (which I don't think they are living up to IRL), but mostly I'm advocating these things because I think they would actually be a good move for a small company and thus good for Jolla's business.

Whether or not they have some closed components is completely beside the point for me and the point of view I have been trying to get across in my own messages.