The trouble makers have arrived to totally screw up this Poll so it is ALL yours... over to you lot.

I voted yes although I don't believe Nokia will care about this Poll. It's nice to see how many people still support Maemo. So long Maemo is not dead.
On one side there's a OS with mostly everything I need, improving daily. On the other side a OS, not ready, with the promise of being somehow better, sometime in the future, maybe, for sure.
As a Dev with economic interest or early adopter Geek it's understandable to support Meego. But as a normal User there's no clue waiting for it for the n900.
More support for Meego from the n900 community means less support for Maemo. I want to use my phone(computer with phone..) now.
Some of you may make fun of abill_uk. I'm thankful for his Poll.

This is a great example of your not understanding your own poll.

The poll vote does not say that Nokia should release the source code.

The poll asks responders what they "want". You seem to assume that what's best is that people get whatever they want. Not necessarily so. You are saying that Nokia should pay no attention to its own interests, it should just obey the masses?

...obey the masses? populism? You don't know what's good for you, but we know?
Nokia is not near obeying the masses, but loosing customers. I don't think the numbers of n900 users are very high, but lots say "Nokia never again". Maybe Nokia could gain some credibility this way?

This Poll has no time limit and will go on indefinetly so as it gathers pace more and more will vote i hope.

Looking at the figures now as you said is approx 95% for and as it grows we might just see a huge morality boost for the CSSU team and i think they deserve and need it.

It is being said quite often now that Maemo is the favourite os and many doubt the MeeGo os for the N900 becoming reality in the near future.

Work with what we have now is my opinion as it is proven even with flaws, the flaws can be ironed out and who knows what Maemo could become.

MeeGo on the other hand i do see as a future os for future devices more geared hardware wise than the N900 dated hardware, as it is becoming slowly but surely of no use to Meego, mainly the reason i think Maemo should prevail and move forward in development for the N900.

Remember we only have 256 ram and the min spec for MeeGo is 512 mb and the cpu also falls short in spec.

The numbers of votes so far are only based at the moment on maybe 2% of the population of members on this Community so please get your votes in and give some moral boost to the CSSU team.

The request this petition makes is most audacious, to say the least, and in the unlikely event it works, it would be quite a triumph. On the assumpton that Nokia (I include all Maemo-device partners, as well as Nokia itself, in that word) will not release any PR-type updates, releasing code would allow the community to make improvements.

I believe, however, that a more refined question may yield some results because without more focus and weight, the reponse will always relate to IPR and so-on. Incidentally, much of that page relates to Maemo4, not 5 and doesn't appear to include drivers/3rd party s/w (point in top para noted).

The reqest could be refined by breaking it down into a list of the areas of functionality where source code or system-access is necessary i.e What source should be released. Many items on this list exist as wontfix and open on the Maemo bug site. For each item on the list there needs to be an associated:
.

1. Why source should be released:

   Although the existing licence alteration scheme has not proved very sucessful, while devices are in use (and phone contracts are still current), there is a case for code-release or official updates (cough!). The release of code might be based on one or more of the following reasons (there may be others too):
   
   (a) Fix those parts of the OS (inc. drivers) that prevent the device operating as advertised, reasonbly expected* or that make it in anyway not wholly fit for purpose. If provable, There might be some grounds for consumer-rights action in this area. The graphics driver (I know it's not just Nokia Corp. involved) is one of the most obvious areas where there's a difference b/w advertised and actual performance - there was no mention of frame-dropping for video playback or image-shearing in the press, was there?
   
   (b) Allow the OS to be extended/improved. Probably not really in Nokia's (or ms's) interest to keep old devies alive unless such an extension/improvement addresses something listed in (a) OR shows a proof of concept that can be used (by Nokia etc.) in future devices.
   
   (c) For application s/w development. Again, unless such s/w addressed something listed in (a) or showed proof of concept, which might help Nokia etc., this argument has the least weight (I beleive).
   
   (d) Allow the device to operate to its full potential e.g. formal BT input support or UI improvments to allow direct printing. This might be possible if release of code wouldn't harm sale of future devies or Nokia etc.; it would be an easier decision for those areas only concerning Nokia. Would it be a valid argument to suggest that doing so would promote the sale of non phone Nokia devices (future or existing)?

2. How source should be released:

   Does the _full_ source (even of requested sub-sections) need to be released, or would header files with precomiled (obfuscated if necessary) lib/[binary-type] files be sufficient? (I'm Assuming that interface and implementation can be separated.)
   
   For OS development (fixing problems), clearly the whole source is necessary, not just the interface; if the implementation of a given class/function is completely rewritten, then the existing (closed) version maybe done away with altogether. Again, for application s/w development one only needs to include a well commented header file to make new applications.

3. To whom source should be released:

   From all the people on the "Yes list", I'm sure many do not have s/w in the Maemo repositories (though many may report operations as testers) and whilst being a vocal member of a community is important, for everyone to have access to the source is, I think, not necessary.
   
   Also, as someone mentioned, who would be liable if "improvements" were found to make the device dangerous to use, or a dependecy clash caused 50% of devices to brick?
   
   Who would sign-off any OS fixes/improvements/extensions?
   
   One idea might be: if projects requiring currently unreleased source had to register via the council (or a dev sub-committee, or similar) and developers needed to register with the project to obtain these sections, some trace of what was going where could be made, then perhaps even the most sensitve parts might get released and fixed?

How often has such a list been presented to Nokia? It would be useful to have summaries of these meetings posted in the News and Community sections.

Some parts of Maemo are more sensitive than others so each could be handled differently. And, a lot of Maemo is Debian, so much of what is needed for application s/w development (not OS development) is already open. That which is closed, seems to be mostly drivers. The advantage of breaking it down would be control, the disadvantage would be spending time on an OS which cannot bring in any more revenue. Though, there maybe an obligation to do so if suitable proof can be found.

I think most N900 owners (and probably N8x0 & N770 owners too) believe the(se) device(s) is/are wasted opportunities, where something truly great could have been realised but for some reason Nokia failed to pull it all together. By releasing relevant pieces of source the community (developers, testers and doc'ers) fixes/improvemts could be sought and users would be happy.

On the one hand by providing good customer support, in the form of updates and source releases etc., Nokia would encourage users to fly its flag who would in turn be more likely to buy another Nokia product. While on the other hand, by offering a very short life-cycle Nokia are forcing users to switch devices, which might seem like a good way to get revenue but makes users less likely to care about who made said device; also, not very 'green' as Nokia always proport to being.

I'm sure some will pour scorn over this post, if for for nothing else, for its length. However, this is not a rant, just a discussion from an occasioal coder and current Maemo user.

The device(s) and OS(s) are very good so attempting to smooth the rough edges is, I believe, a worthwhile venture; clearly many others do as well, as shown by the interest in the CSSU and the growth in the number of programmes in the repositories, even since Nokia told some commercial developers to give up on Maemo.

Re: my vote: I'm still on the fence because, as it stands, I don't think it's a viable (and in some ways reasonable) request. Also, I'm not sure a yes/no poll for source-release is the best way to achieve bugs fixes and making Maemo more extensible because there's more to it than that (what, why, how, to whom, etc). But, I do agree with the sentiment: either fix the errors or let us (Maemo community) fix them ourselves.

*reasonably expected: only pertaining to existing features e.g. fix not being able to turn device on while charging.

But I wanted to waste my time with trolls to have a break from these serious emails I had to write that evening... ;-)

There are search engines on the interwebs (e.g. with the search terms "bme" and "meego") to find stuff: http://lists.meego.com/pipermail/mee...ry/481466.html

They have not "released" code to Carsten.
My guess is that Carsten probably has an NDA, just like me, so we can access the closed codebase.

The fact I can vote both... works for me. Yes I want it, but no... I don't want it because honestly? It'll either be half-assed or won't come in a way that we'd consider it useful... like the TI 3D drivers for Maemo 4.1

You do patronize. In
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=116 for example you want to speak for the CSSU team by telling what you think they need, and you criticize people that criticize you for obviously having never spoken to the CSSU team to find out about their needs...

You're welcome.