I'm not sure how out of context it could have been. I quoted an entire paragraph of the statement but maybe I missed out on something, seeing as how I'm reading it filtered through several articles. What was the context of the quote that I maybe misinterpreted?
"the open community needs to embrace closed and proprietary landmines"
Jaaksi notes that there are some important lessons that Nokia has learned from the open source community[1], such as the value of working upstream. Companies that are accustomed to proprietary development often tend to fork an open source project internally and then do a public code drop later in order to meet licensing obligations when they release a product. Working directly upstream with other contributors, he says, can prevent fragmentation and accelerate development. Although he believes that companies need to adapt to and learn from the open source approach, he also thinks that the open source community should be more understanding of the challenges faced by companies and the reasons behind some their restrictive business practices. "We want to educate open-source developers. There are certain business rules [developers] need to obey[2], such as DRM, IPR [intellectual property rights], SIM locks and subsidized business models," Jaaksi said, according to BusinessWeek. "Why do we need closed vehicles? We do. Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]. These are touchy, emotional issues but this dialogue is very much needed. As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too."