And at some point, I explained that Diablo and Fremantle were always presented to the community as being open source projects. Granted it is difficult and takes resource to open up closed source code, but the situation here should not be that difficult, because openness was an original goal, right?

The other thing that concerns me is how this openness approach got flipped to have a different rationale. The quintessential open source license is you publish the source, everyone is free to come and take it without getting special permission, and the only requirement is that they offer their source on similar terms. This is where open source communities shine - an organic process that lets people take the source and do amazing things with it that perhaps can't be imagined much less enunciated in advance.

At one point, starting with the "why the closed components" wiki page, Nokia attempted to impose requirements essentially saying that "if you want a component opened, you have to bring justifications of why we should do so and convince us that it is beneficial ." I can understand why you would do that for business reasons, but that is not an organic, open source approach and it is unfortunate that things got twisted that way. I am trying to say in a nice way that Nokia should try to set things right.

Thank you for considering this. I noticed with great interest the $50K donation to gnome. But they didn't seem to want to use it to support the effort of Conny and others to bring Hildon/GTK+ to MeeGo. That (and anything else that helps port Diablo and Fremantle apps to MeeGo) seems like a good way to move on, worthy of consideration, and consistent with the long term goals of the Diablo Community Project which I support. What do we do next?