Active Topics
-
Maemo repository (8)
to Community by Maemish - 1 day, 6 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (44)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by norayr - 1 day, 11 hrs ago -
List of well performing apps on Leste (35)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by smatkovi - 4 days, 8 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (13)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 5 days, 6 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 (SM-N910C) - (treltexx) (79)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 5 days, 6 hrs ago -
U-Boot for Nokia RX-51 with BootMenu (updated version 2012.10-rc3-1) (843)
to Alternatives by Arno_11 - 5 days, 11 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2009-09-24
, 12:56
|
|
Posts: 1,878 |
Thanked: 646 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ San Jose, CA
|
#122
|
Originally Posted by luca
Whether it is bogus or not is irrelevant. Entities have a right to be wrong, sub-optimal, etc. Nokia, as the owner of the property in question, can choose whatever path they want. Even a bogus path. To tell them that they can't undermines everyone's freedom ... Nokia's, yours, mine, etc.
My point is that the "let's keep something closed so we have a competitive advantage" argument is bogus.
Anyway, redhat is in a less ideal position than nokia (its "product", be it the distribution or the services, is far easier to copy than a piece of hardware) yet they manage to make a profit.
(and, by the way, I used to work for Redhat and one of the companies it absorbed (Cygnus, who from the late 1980's through all of the 1990's, was the main developer and support mechanism for gcc and gdb, and were the creators of cygwin), so I have some familiarity with the way "free software companies" work)
__________________
My Personal Blog
My Personal Blog
| The Following User Says Thank You to johnkzin For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-24
, 13:39
|
|
Posts: 206 |
Thanked: 72 times |
Joined on Jun 2009
@ Switzerland
|
#123
|
@ luca: I'm agree with you.
If the reason for these proprietary softwares it to prevent copying of Maemo on other mobile device, then it's ineffective.
For each program that would proprietary in Maemo 5, there exist a FOSS alternative in FOSS Mobile or Desktop OS.
Example:
Conversation --> Empathy
Contact --> OpenMoko Contact
Media-Player_UI --> Canola
etc...
It will just adapt the UI, add 2 or 3 functionalitys and a similar API to API present in Maemo 5.
A Chinese company of copy that does not concern by quality can do this is shortly time.
But 100% closed is neither a solution. An example? The iPhone.
There are many Chinese copies of the iPhone.
If Maemo 5 begin popular, it will be copied.
If not popular, not copied.
So ultimately, this "anti-copy protection" will be ineffective and prevent the working of the community on certain elements of Maemo. That is all it will present.
So why these proprietary softwares?
I think it come more from the awkwardness than from the evilness.
But it will create problems to the community and ultimately to Nokia.
If the reason for these proprietary softwares it to prevent copying of Maemo on other mobile device, then it's ineffective.
For each program that would proprietary in Maemo 5, there exist a FOSS alternative in FOSS Mobile or Desktop OS.
Example:
Conversation --> Empathy
Contact --> OpenMoko Contact
Media-Player_UI --> Canola
etc...
It will just adapt the UI, add 2 or 3 functionalitys and a similar API to API present in Maemo 5.
A Chinese company of copy that does not concern by quality can do this is shortly time.
But 100% closed is neither a solution. An example? The iPhone.
There are many Chinese copies of the iPhone.
If Maemo 5 begin popular, it will be copied.
If not popular, not copied.
So ultimately, this "anti-copy protection" will be ineffective and prevent the working of the community on certain elements of Maemo. That is all it will present.
So why these proprietary softwares?
I think it come more from the awkwardness than from the evilness.
But it will create problems to the community and ultimately to Nokia.
| The Following User Says Thank You to korbé For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-24
, 13:58
|
|
Posts: 1,513 |
Thanked: 2,248 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ US
|
#124
|
Originally Posted by johnkzin
The "competitive advantage" argument is relevant because that's one of the points that Nokia has made. But I don't think it's fair at this point to say the argument is bogus. Although parts of Maemo 5 are closed, Nokia has apparently indicated it is willing to cooperate on opening parts of Diablo and the graphics drivers for the N8x0, which I think is rather consistent with the competitive advantage considerations for keeping parts closed.
Whether it is bogus or not is irrelevant. Entities have a right to be wrong, sub-optimal, etc. Nokia, as the owner of the property in question, can choose whatever path they want. Even a bogus path. To tell them that they can't undermines everyone's freedom ... Nokia's, yours, mine, etc.
 |
|
2009-09-24
, 14:03
|
|
Posts: 850 |
Thanked: 626 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#125
|
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
i was under the impression that that was exactly their intent, since "Pine" is a registered trademark.
SubCore, from what you say it'd seem the license tries to function as a trademark protection.
and i misread this, thinking it's still under a BSD-style license.
sorry for the confusion i might have caused and thanks for clearing it up.
 |
|
2009-09-24
, 15:09
|
|
Posts: 3,397 |
Thanked: 1,212 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Netherlands
|
#126
|
Originally Posted by range
Whether software updates are free or not is not related to the definition of open source. If Debian stops functioning tomorrow that does not suddenly make your Debian GNU/Linux distribution proprietary. Same for if they'd ask money for software updates.
That still doesn't enable you to use RH Enterprise, because you won't get any updates if you have no subscription.
In fact, it is entirely OK to ask money for open source or free software.
Like I said, RHEL is completely open source (OK, maybe something like Nvidia driver). An OS which is 100% open source but comes with trademarked artwork is still 100% open source. If RHEL wouldn't defend their trademarks they'd lose them.
__________________
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
| The Following User Says Thank You to allnameswereout For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-09-24
, 15:36
|
|
Posts: 4,384 |
Thanked: 5,524 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ ˙ǝɹǝɥʍou
|
#127
|
This is tightly related to financial reasoning (calculations and all that) to produce and sustain the device.
You can't just blast it based on opensource idealism without understanding the numbers and making irrelevant comparisons with SERVICE companies that makes use of opensource software as part of their offering.
Maybe to make it simpler for everyone, try to get a sample company that produces a commercial device, but not directly compatible with other platforms before it that makes use of 100% opensource codes and thriving.
You can't just blast it based on opensource idealism without understanding the numbers and making irrelevant comparisons with SERVICE companies that makes use of opensource software as part of their offering.
Maybe to make it simpler for everyone, try to get a sample company that produces a commercial device, but not directly compatible with other platforms before it that makes use of 100% opensource codes and thriving.
|
|
2009-09-24
, 15:59
|
|
Posts: 206 |
Thanked: 72 times |
Joined on Jun 2009
@ Switzerland
|
#128
|
Originally Posted by ysss
This is tightly related to financial reasoning (calculations and all that) to produce and sustain the device.
You can't just blast it based on opensource idealism without understanding the numbers and making irrelevant comparisons with SERVICE companies that makes use of opensource software as part of their offering.
Maybe to make it simpler for everyone, try to get a sample company that produces a commercial device, but not directly compatible with other platforms before it that makes use of 100% opensource codes and thriving.
PC manufacturers are not "competitive advantage" with the software they pre-install on their PCs. Yet they make profit.
Well, OK, PCs are mostly sold with Windows and Windows is not FOSS. But Windows is also disponnible for Chinese companies of copies and PC manufacturers make still profits.
Why?
Last edited by korbé; 2009-09-24 at 16:04.
| The Following User Says Thank You to korbé For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-24
, 16:08
|
|
Posts: 716 |
Thanked: 303 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Sheffield, UK
|
#129
|
Personally, I think it makes total sense to keep some things locked down. How else do you make your product stand out from someone elses?
If someone made a Linux distro and decided to not allow open use of their theme/GUI, how is that bad? The underlying OS and backend is still open, its just the GUI that may not be. I do not see that as bad at all.
At the end of the day, Nokia are not going to want a competitor to release a competing device using the exact same interface. They need to retain a little control so that you only get that true experience on a Nokia branded device. That's just business sense.
Why spend a ton of money doing something that your competitors can then rip off for free?
If you want a totally open platform, then YOU are going to have to create it. The only fully community driven devices that are out there are really niche devices and never hit mainstream plus are often usability nightmares. THAT is why you need a commercial company to step in and set some ground rules, pump some money into the project and that naturally results in it being slightly less open, but with much more usability and mass market appeal.
If someone made a Linux distro and decided to not allow open use of their theme/GUI, how is that bad? The underlying OS and backend is still open, its just the GUI that may not be. I do not see that as bad at all.
At the end of the day, Nokia are not going to want a competitor to release a competing device using the exact same interface. They need to retain a little control so that you only get that true experience on a Nokia branded device. That's just business sense.
Why spend a ton of money doing something that your competitors can then rip off for free?
If you want a totally open platform, then YOU are going to have to create it. The only fully community driven devices that are out there are really niche devices and never hit mainstream plus are often usability nightmares. THAT is why you need a commercial company to step in and set some ground rules, pump some money into the project and that naturally results in it being slightly less open, but with much more usability and mass market appeal.
|
|
2009-09-24
, 17:01
|
|
Posts: 607 |
Thanked: 450 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Washington, DC
|
#130
|
Originally Posted by Alex Atkin UK
For anyone who rejects the N900 because of open source issues, there's always the TuxPhone:
If you want a totally open platform, then YOU are going to have to create it.
http://www.opencellphone.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
Have at it.
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:17.
The chinese will copy it, closed or not. What they cannot copy is the high design and build quality of a nokia device.
Anyway, redhat is in a less ideal position than nokia (its "product", be it the distribution or the services, is far easier to copy than a piece of hardware) yet they manage to make a profit.