maemo.org - Talk - View Single Post - [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2

	danramos	2010-07-06 , 20:10
	Posts: 4,672 \| Thanked: 5,455 times \| Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA	#208

Originally Posted by YoDude

Yeeesh... What part of the councils request for an explanation about the forced MyNokia subscription in PR1.2, and Nokia's response is about open source?

If we as seasoned members can't keep a thread focused "On Topic" it becomes hypocritically to expect new members to do the same.

How about the part where we get to see what's in the source for the operating system so that things like this don't end up in it in the first place? To your point, though, they STILL haven't explained why they felt it was necessary to sneak this in. They simple put a lot of words together to explain that it's a computer. It really doesn't answer the question. In the long run, had the operating system been ACTUAL OPEN-SOURCE, this might never have happened at all--or at the very least, someone would have seen it and provided fixes to make it tolerable and less sleazy and surreptitious.

It's perfect that Groklaw had a follow-up legalese article based on that article I cited earlier:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...00704191126134

I highly recommend checking it out to get my point about open-core and the ruination of boxing it in with closed-source that locks you into a vendor's version of distribution.

Originally Posted by woody14619

Linux doesn't mean it's 100% open, never has, never will. Lots of things use Linux as their base OS, many of which you don't even consider as having an OS (like your home/office security system). It by no means means are you free to browse their code.

Actually, Linux does mean 100% open. Anything that is in Linux is open. You can attach non-open to it, you can run non-open in it but Linux is 100% open and that IS the whole point. Distributions based on Linux, not-so-much. Go read the GPL license that comes with it. Go on.

Originally Posted by woody14619

So if I run my code through an obfuscator a few times, remove all the comments (or put in misleading ones) and then publish the resulting "code" as opensource, since I published it, it's "open"? Code isn't the only piece in play here. You can say it is all you want, but there's more to it than just publishing code.

You're right. It's all about opening said source for code and the disclosure and honesty that comes with it.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post:
pelago