Active Topics
-
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 1 day, 3 hrs ago -
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 1 day, 4 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 1 day, 19 hrs ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 2 days, 17 hrs ago -
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 3 days, 23 hrs ago - more...
 |
sachin007 |
2007-11-05
, 16:53
|
|
Posts: 2,041 |
Thanked: 1,066 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Houston
|
#1
|
Nokia is not part of the open platform alliance. So how does thing fit into the big scheme of things??
|
|
2007-11-05
, 17:25
|
|
Posts: 631 |
Thanked: 1,123 times |
Joined on Sep 2005
@ Helsinki
|
#2
|
Android sounds like a competing open mobile platform. If you're an optimist, you can interpret it as validating the direction of the Maemo platform: open is good and that Maemo has a head start. (We'll hear those, I guess.) If you're a pessimist, you can start predicting doom for Maemo, as you can with the iPhone or with any other number of issues. (We've already heard a lot of those!) If you're a realist, you can say that wait and we'll see what happens: there is a long way from an announcement to anything real. 
(The boring people will then tell that.)
(The boring people will then tell that.)
 |
|
2007-11-05
, 17:36
|
|
Posts: 1,878 |
Thanked: 646 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ San Jose, CA
|
#3
|
I think it'd be prudent for Nokia to join the OHA, and have a version of Android available for download/use on appropriate devices (phones and tablets).
BUT
I don't think it'd be appropriate for Nokia to bet the farm on Android by abandoning Maemo.
Support Android. Make Android available. Port useful features of Android to Maemo. Give some useful capabilities to Android (ie. genuinely support it, instead of just getting your name onto the list). But it's _way_ too soon to bet the farm on it.
(however, I will say: I _SO_ call it! (in another thread I said it'd be a software announcement, and not a hardware announcement))
BUT
I don't think it'd be appropriate for Nokia to bet the farm on Android by abandoning Maemo.
Support Android. Make Android available. Port useful features of Android to Maemo. Give some useful capabilities to Android (ie. genuinely support it, instead of just getting your name onto the list). But it's _way_ too soon to bet the farm on it.
(however, I will say: I _SO_ call it! (in another thread I said it'd be a software announcement, and not a hardware announcement))
 |
|
2007-11-05
, 17:52
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#4
|
Originally Posted by johnkzin
Wait for the other shoe.
(however, I will say: I _SO_ call it! (in another thread I said it'd be a software announcement, and not a hardware announcement))
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 |
|
2007-11-05
, 18:44
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#5
|
I'm not too happy with the Google initiative: They chose the Apache v2 license, which is inferior to the GPL/LGPL used by, say, OpenMoko.
Citing the relevant section from the Open handset Alliance-FAQ:
They're not even trying to hide their intentions: Take from the community, but dont give back. (Apple does the samer, but is more honest about it.) This is not a good thing. I'm not happy.
Citing the relevant section from the Open handset Alliance-FAQ:
Why did you pick the Apache v2 open source license?
Apache is a commercial-friendly open-source license. The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate using the platform without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open-source community.
 |
|
2007-11-05
, 20:29
|
|
Posts: 2,669 |
Thanked: 2,555 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#6
|
Originally Posted by benny1967
Benny, I'm pretty sure Google wanted to make it LGPL or GPL... hell, even BSD, but the only way you get hardware manufacturers onboard is if you tell them "don't worry, we'll protect you from giving away your secrets".
I'm not too happy with the Google initiative: They chose the Apache v2 license, which is inferior to the GPL/LGPL used by, say, OpenMoko.
Citing the relevant section from the Open handset Alliance-FAQ:
They're not even trying to hide their intentions: Take from the community, but dont give back. (Apple does the samer, but is more honest about it.) This is not a good thing. I'm not happy.
|
|
2007-11-05
, 20:44
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#7
|
Thats speculation. Maybe Google would have wanted it to be GPLed. Maybe not.
Trading GPL for some manufacturers goodwill doesnt seem like a good deal for me. You cant go half way to free software. Either you want it (then do it!), or what you want is only unpaid developers worldwide who'll never get anything in return - then go to hell with it.
Trading GPL for some manufacturers goodwill doesnt seem like a good deal for me. You cant go half way to free software. Either you want it (then do it!), or what you want is only unpaid developers worldwide who'll never get anything in return - then go to hell with it.
|
|
2007-11-05
, 20:51
|
|
Posts: 2,669 |
Thanked: 2,555 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#8
|
Originally Posted by benny1967
Well, it's pretty much the only way it would have happened at all because there's no way they could have announced "it's GPL" and had even one of those manufacturers interested. Not even a single one. That's just how it works. Most of those companies have never been involved in anything remotely resembling open source development, so they know nothing about how it works. All they know is "we're giving away our secrets". I think what we'll see is that this is Google's way of warming them up to the platform and then later on going full GPL once the platform's gained some foothold in the market. At that point, we'll ultimately see if Android will succeed and actually convince the phone manufacturers (and providers - they see open source as a security risk) to join them and GPL their work.
Thats speculation. Maybe Google would have wanted it to be GPLed. Maybe not.
Trading GPL for some manufacturers goodwill doesnt seem like a good deal for me. You cant go half way to free software. Either you want it (then do it!), or what you want is only unpaid developers worldwide who'll never get anything in return - then go to hell with it.
|
|
2007-11-05
, 20:54
|
|
Posts: 631 |
Thanked: 1,123 times |
Joined on Sep 2005
@ Helsinki
|
#9
|
Google is a smart company: they choose a license that will make firms like Motorola, Samsung, Qualcomm and Nvidia feel safe to contribute. I wouldn't also speculate that "if Google could decide" they would go GPL. They're very pragmatic, not idealistic, in this manner. But yes, that license isn't strictly up to what the marketing speak is at the Android site.
|
|
2007-11-05
, 21:11
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#10
|
Originally Posted by zerojay
Thats probably not going to work. Big projects like this dont change their licenses, not if the new one would be less rewarding for the manufacturers than the old one. No. Apache v.2 is here to stay.
Well, it's pretty much the only way it would have happened at all because there's no way they could have announced "it's GPL" and had even one of those manufacturers interested. Not even a single one. That's just how it works. Most of those companies have never been involved in anything remotely resembling open source development, so they know nothing about how it works. All they know is "we're giving away our secrets". I think what we'll see is that this is Google's way of warming them up to the platform and then later on going full GPL once the platform's gained some foothold in the market. At that point, we'll ultimately see if Android will succeed and actually convince the phone manufacturers (and providers - they see open source as a security risk) to join them and GPL their work.
I agree: It wouldnt have worked with GPL. Manufacturers wouldnt have swallowed a GPLed framework. So what? There is a GPL-licensed platform. What use is a „commercial-friendly open-source license […] without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open-source community“ if what you wanted was contributions to the community? I'm afraid they'll rip of community-developers, happily accepting their code but never sharing further improvements they make themselves. Thats not how it works. I'd rather have no Google-Phone at all than such a semi-open-platform.
Again, all of this is speculation at this point. - Except that lawyers say Apache v2 ist not compatible to GPLv2. So dont try using existing, GPLed code for projects on Android... (except there's a GPLv3 version; GPLv3 and Apache v2 are compatible)