Maemo is CSS contaminated (not entirely open) - Page 2 - maemo.org

Active Topics

Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 10 hrs, 4 mins ago
The N900 is now 15 years old! (6)
to Nokia N900 by Macros - 2 days, 6 hrs ago
F(x)tec Pro1x (QWERTY) for sale (0)
to Buy & Sell by aln00000 - 2 days, 18 hrs ago
n770 youtube video (0)
to General by nmdv - 6 days, 18 hrs ago
more...

Page 2 of 5

< Prev

Next >

Last »

Thread Tools

	Benson	2008-02-25 , 16:33
	Posts: 4,930 \| Thanked: 2,272 times \| Joined on Oct 2007	#11

Originally Posted by jgombos

Regarding the MAC address, I'm very distrusting. I can only see how the collection of that information can be used against users and developers. Eg. A developer who becomes bound by the EULA (and the agreement acceptance is tracked via MAC address) produces an OS or component that somehow damages the profits of those standing in front of closed source components. From there it's just a matter of picking out whatever in the fine print in the EULA that can be used to threaten or sue the developer.

I understand you're distrusting, and I think that's wise and prudent. But, since they require you to accept the EULA to download it, what difference does it make if you provide the MAC? That you downloaded it is sufficient to show you clicked through the EULA, and the MAC of your tablet is in no way imprinted in the OS or components you might make, so I can see no way they could leverage the MAC entry. I understand it to be strictly a means of preventing people with no N8x0 (and no cleverness or motivation) from wasting their bandwidth. They already know what range of MACs they shipped, and if they can't tie it to anything in particular, it's no use, and I guess gets sent to the bit bucket as soon as it's range-checked for validity.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to Benson For This Useful Post:
Texrat

TA-t3	2008-02-25 , 16:36
Posts: 3,841 \| Thanked: 1,079 times \| Joined on Nov 2006	#12

The components that I feel could and should be replaced are those three mentioned in an earlier posting: wi-fi, bluetooth and possibly the dsp code (at least the former two are always open source in linux kernels for other devices). There shouldn't be any reason for having closed wi-fi and BT drivers.

__________________
N800/OS2007|N900/Maemo5
-- Metalayer-crawler delenda est.
-- Current state: Fed up with everything MeeGo.

Quote & Reply |

	Texrat	2008-02-25 , 16:56
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#13

Jgombos, you are comparing apples and oranges when you invoke OpenMoko. Nokia hardware is closed. I don't see that changing. Plus, there were components involved from the outset that had no open source drivers or other means of access. Again, going 100% open would have meant that the Nokia tablets available now would not have been deployed.

Also, my statement about the subject being discussed numerous times is 100% correct.

As for flash, the GPL equivalent is a bit behind the commercial, is it not? Either way, that leads to a tangential argument that I won't indulge. It is what it is.

Bottom line, I understand your desire for 100% openness-- but again, there are very valid reasons why that is currently impractical with the Nokia tablets. I've barely touched on them. Others have already epxlained in greater detail in previous threads on this forum. I am sure that with the right approach the forum (or Google) Search would find them. The important thing to note is that as the platform has progressed, there HAS been continuous effort to open the tablets more.

EDIT: I find it interesting and ironic that you want increased openness from a commercial manufacturer like Nokia and then express fears of lawsuits over a simple, innocuous device registration. If you examine that dichotomy objectively, isn't the latter paranoia?

__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Last edited by Texrat; 2008-02-25 at 17:01.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
GeneralAntilles, polossatik

	kudos1uk	2008-02-25 , 20:44
	Posts: 166 \| Thanked: 26 times \| Joined on Jun 2007 @ Hampshire, UK	#14

There is no mac required if you update with the nokia update tool in windows.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to kudos1uk For This Useful Post:
jgombos

	linux_author	2008-02-26 , 12:29
	Posts: 282 \| Thanked: 69 times \| Joined on Dec 2007 @ Penniless Park, Fla.	#15

Originally Posted by Texrat

However, as long as technologies like Flash are supported, they can't possibly be 100% open and I don't know how someone would get the idea they could.

- someday Flash too will be free:

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

(most swf7 features supported now, such as streaming video from YouTube or Lulu)

:-)

Quote & Reply |

	Texrat	2008-02-26 , 13:25
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#16

I actually wish SVG would take over...

__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
free, sjgadsby

gammer	2008-02-27 , 10:52
Posts: 204 \| Thanked: 15 times \| Joined on Jan 2007 @ Berlin, Germany	#17

Originally Posted by kudos1uk

There is no mac required if you update with the nokia update tool in windows.

At least you do not need to type it in

Quote & Reply |

	polossatik	2008-02-27 , 11:46
	Posts: 126 \| Thanked: 23 times \| Joined on Jan 2008	#18

Originally Posted by jgombos

Frills like Flash could easily be a separate install. And if Flash and other non-essential technologies were the only parts preventing Mamona from happening, Maemo may not have been packaged with them in the first place (debatable) but certainly Mamona would already be complete, and it would have captured the interest of most developers; certainly all the GNU purists.

The Nokia tablet is a "form factor experiment" of Nokia, the target of it is not GNU / linux / <insert any other form license> opposite to for example openmoko or GP2X .

It's target are mainly *users* like me who like to have a device that simply works. 99% of this audience has no interest in getting a "GNU clean" system that has less functionality (because of driver issues with some parts or so) then a system where parts are closed source "binary blob" but work as advertised (or close...

).

If GNU purists succeed in making a system that is better then the provided SW stack I'll bet a lot of people will be more then happy to use it, but until then most "normal" users won't care to much - wich is nokia's target (in the long run) audience.
The fact that Nokia is trying to make a working business model based on (partial) GPL software is only to be applauded as it will only give more credibility to the opensource/gnu/.... "movement".

bootnote: I never heard someone not buying a TV because their TV firmware was not "opensource"...

Last edited by polossatik; 2008-02-27 at 11:49.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to polossatik For This Useful Post:
Benson, Texrat, twaelti

	Johnx	2008-02-27 , 12:46
	Posts: 643 \| Thanked: 628 times \| Joined on Mar 2007 @ Seattle (or thereabouts)	#19

As long as this topic has been brought up again, I'd like to just ask a couple questions to anyone who can shed light on them. I can completely follow the logic for why wifi (and bluetooth and dsp) drivers ended up closed source: NDAs, patents and license agreements are a minefield in the hardware world, especially in embedded systems. Likewise, commercial flash support is an unfortunate necessity for the majority of the NIT's target demographic. This is nothing new, and from a business point of view is a pretty simple choice to make when push comes to shove (ie, do we want GPL drivers for wireless or the best/cheapest wireless chipset we can get?).

What I don't understand is all the ridiculous little bits of code here and there that are closed source. Things like the backlight and volume statusbar applets use publicly available APIs to control the hardware, however for new programmers they provide helpful examples for to write a proper statusbar applet. Ask rm_you how much time he spent trying to figure out how Nokia got them to look the way they did. Also, the browser UI, which seemed to be open source for a while then went back to being closed source: What's up with that? I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the closed source part has nothing to do with flash support. And random things like the "Web" menu on the lefthand panel and many of the home applets. And what's the business case behind making the image viewer closed source? It depends on open source libs for image loading and processing, but the part that would make a great, simple example of a hildonized app is closed.

I'm not blaming anyone and I'm not some open source zealot. I understand that it's Nokia's code and they have the right to do whatever they want with it. And really this is all somewhat rhetorical, as I think I know the reason the PHBs don't want to have this stuff open source: competitive advantage. If Intel is going to get their MID into the same market as the Internet Tablet, then Nokia wants them to at least have to spend the R&D cash rewriting all the apps they'll need.

Anyways, that's all, I'll shut up now.

-John

Last edited by Johnx; 2008-02-27 at 12:47. Reason: Added some *paragraph* breaks for readability

Quote & Reply |

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Johnx For This Useful Post:
GeneralAntilles, sjgadsby, TA-t3

	Benson	2008-02-27 , 13:07
	Posts: 4,930 \| Thanked: 2,272 times \| Joined on Oct 2007	#20

Originally Posted by Johnx

What I don't understand is all the ridiculous little bits of code here and there that are closed source. Things like the backlight and volume statusbar applets use publicly available APIs to control the hardware, however for new programmers they provide helpful examples for to write a proper statusbar applet. Ask rm_you how much time he spent trying to figure out how Nokia got them to look the way they did.

I still don't think he was able to figure it out.

Also, the browser UI, which seemed to be open source for a while then went back to being closed source: What's up with that? I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the closed source part has nothing to do with flash support. And random things like the "Web" menu on the lefthand panel and many of the home applets. And what's the business case behind making the image viewer closed source? It depends on open source libs for image loading and processing, but the part that would make a great, simple example of a hildonized app is closed.

I'm not blaming anyone and I'm not some open source zealot. I understand that it's Nokia's code and they have the right to do whatever they want with it. And really this is all somewhat rhetorical, as I think I know the reason the PHBs don't want to have this stuff open source: competitive advantage. If Intel is going to get their MID into the same market as the Internet Tablet, then Nokia wants them to at least have to spend the R&D cash rewriting all the apps they'll need.

Anyways, that's all, I'll shut up now.

-John

Agreed with you regarding the annoyance of these being closed, but I suspect the reason isn't competitive advantage. I suspect they don't want to spend the time checking each app(let) to verify that nothing in it comes from an NDA, or is otherwise constrained from release. Not that there is anything like that, and they already know there isn't, but policies probably exist that it must be checked and certified, and that's too much hassle/their legal team is too busy/whatever.