View Single Post
qgil's Avatar
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,088 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#26
Originally Posted by qole View Post
Why are we being asked to justify every closed-source component?
Because otherwise you are breaching the licenses of the software you want to use?

We asked the Mer team to list the *3rd party* closed source packages they need, since they don't belong to Nokia and therefore we need to make sure the owners are fine with the deal.

For instance, Flash belongs to Adobe and Skype belongs to Skype Inc. The agreements signed with these companies are framed for official releases going through a quite demanding quality process. If Nokia would let the Mer team (or whoever) grab those binaries for other purposes then those agreements would be in trouble, affecting e.g. the negotiations for Fremantle.

EDIT: By the way, forget about an official endorsement on 3rd party applications. 3rd party platform components essential to get the hardware running are a different and more feasible story.

I would think it would be a more simple case than that; can we have the closed source bits for Mer? Yes? Thanks!
This is more or less what we have already said about the closed source components owned by Nokia:

We don't see any problem with the idea of redistributing Nokia owned
software to owners of Nokia devices, and the question to be decided is
only the best way to do it.


It seems weird that Nokia is saying, "Yes, you can have closed source bits, but you have to work for it; you have to justify each one -- why do you need that one? And why do you need that one? Are you really, really sure you need that one? Show me how much you want it. Oh, come on, you can live without that one."
Nokia has never said anything like that.

Last edited by qgil; 2009-02-02 at 19:50.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post: