@ Yssss M#131:

You say that my example is not just because the computer is developed around the model Win-tel.
But it's wrong, my example is correct.
If computers had developed around a free OS, the computer now will not be less open. Instead it will be more open, freer (as free speach) and better quality.

The computer market is open today because it has been well established. And it was created thus beacaus it's a working model, companies make money and user have got choice.

So no, my example is not futile.

@ johnkzin M#134:

The N900 is not so different from a laptop.
You say that PCs are assemblies with parts of different manufacturers.
It's True, but who made the processor N900? Nokia? No, that Texas Instrument. It's same for the graphics accelerator for the audio amplifier, etc... They are not manufactured by Nokia.
PC manufacturers are producing components that can not produce themselves by other manufacturers, it's the same for Nokia and the N900. The N900 is built the same model that a PC: a processor, memory RAM, memory to store OS and user data, input devices and output devices, etc. ...
Finally, the N900 is a PC, for pocket, but a PC. It is more nigh of TouchBook (a Netbook ARM processor) than the 3310.
And Nokia too says the N900 is a Mobile PC.
So yes, it requires more work to create a N900 than a laptop, but why should that stop Nokia adopt the same policy of openness, for the software, than it is possible on the PC market?

Your arguments do not convince me, he instead makes me think more than I have right and that everyone would gain something if Maemo became 100% FOSS (exept some drivers): Nokia, the Maemo community and users.

Currently, the following model will be ideal (from me):

N900:
- Nokia allows, as a PC, install the OS than user choice.
- Like on a PC, an OS is pre-installed: Maemo 5.
- Basic, except for some drivers, Maemo is 100% Free.
- Proprietary supplements (Skype, Adobe Flash, codecs audio / video, etc ...) are automatically installed if the user seems to need it. (like Ubuntu). If the user does not need them, they are not installed.

Maemo, same model as for Ubuntu:
- A non-lucrative foundation is created: The Maemo Foundation.
- The Maemo name and logo have become the property of the Maemo Foundation.
- The Maemo Foundation aims is to manage community development around Maemo, organize the promotion of Maemo in event around Free Software and ensure that Maemo is Free.
- Nokia becomes the main sponsor of Maemo. Because Nokia needs Maemo to sell its N900, Nokia provides developers in full-time (as for Canonical Ubntu) and fiances.

@qgil M#135:

I agree that the business model I was talking about and that you quote may be impossible to present for the material. But, there are experimental projects underway in this regard.

But the business model that I present some lines above them is functional. Moreover, it solves the problem that you say in the software "competitors use the Nokia work before Nokia."

Indeed if Maemo is developed by a Maemo Foundation, everyone is equal, problem solved.

Because here, the problem you says is not resolved by the actual model:

In the hardware layer:
A competitor has the hardware drivers that he will sell, so anything that Nokia make don't change anything. Proprietary software is only acceptable in a pilot, if understanding of this driver permit copy the hardware.

In the Application layer:
With the exception of OVI MAP, any software application developed by Nokia could be replaced by a FOSS equivalent taken in on GNU/Linux Desktop. I explained this a few posts before this one.
And ultimately, the competition will have more FOSS software application with more functionality. So, in addition to taking customers to Nokia, the competitor will get a larger community.


The problem you are saying now is not resolved by the model chosen by Nokia now, but the model I propose in this answer resolve it.

So ultimately, I see no reason for the presence of proprietary software other than some drivers.

So, why?