View Single Post
Posts: 1,513 | Thanked: 2,248 times | Joined on Mar 2006 @ US
#25
Originally Posted by Stskeeps View Post
OK, I really have to defuse this one, sorry This is -me- asking, what we need to put our focus into looking at trying to make work in Mer. All Nokia has asked for, is a list[1]. No justifications, just what we think would be useful and what we would want to distribute, and to isolate early on as possible to see what would be possible to distribute, both of Nokia applications and 3rd party code.

They are doing us a huge favour through this opening, - allowing Mer on tablets to accelerate to Fremantle-level functionality so when Fremantle (and RX-51) comes out, N8x0(W) (and maybe even 770) will have quite similar functionality.

Why we're asking for reasoning, is to make it possible to prioritize our time in determining where it's even worth spending time on trying to integrating the closed source bits.



Yes, we are. The closed bits stuff is added value to make it a more viable backport of Fremantle functionality, so people doesn't have to sacrifice functionality of their tablets. For my sake I could live with HW interfacing closed source bits, but some people are more picky



The open source replacements question is to make us aware what things people would agree on would be good to include in base firmware images, or things that could be useful to spend time on integrating, - to see what people want and what they can live without.
Thanks, your explanation is good. Yes, and the request to Nokia has to be judicious. For example, for things like Flash and Skype, Nokia may not have the ability to grant the request since they are downstream themselves and may or may not want to pass along the request upstream. There have to be considerations to Nokia's perspective in the request, but there should be some cooperation because it is in their interest to prevent a backlash from perceived abandonment of legacy NITs. Also, you can factor in considerations like the efforts in Ubuntu to get some open component for Flash/my tube for ARM.

These comments are also the good reason why there is benefit to having two versions of Mer. One for the backport to legacy NITs and one for more open version. It is beneficial that there will also be a more open version so making a request for a closed component does not preclude a version that might include an open component and we will not be in an either/or situation.