Depends how much stock you put in EULAs, fair use, copyright law in general, etc.; you certainly won't catch much grief from Nokia doing that, but if someone were to distribute whatever parts of Microb are proprietary (I'd been under the impression it was open, BTW), there'd be a lawyer fight over it, even if there was a disclaimer telling you not to grab that package unless you own an N8x0... In practice, this means it can't be distributed.

As for it being the fastest, I'd give it credit as the fastest commercially-backed one, maybe. But check out a lightweight webkit-based one like Midori or Tear (alpha warning!), and you might change your mind, especially if predicting forward to when Maemo-on-Pandora would happen.

Be careful with your terminology. MicroB is free and open source software, but MicroB is only the engine, it's not the whole browser. tablet-browser-ui (or the front-end part of the 'Mozilla based browser for Maemo'), on the other hand, is closed (but will be replaced with an open version in Fremantle).

That's the same front-end as was used for Opera in OS2007, right?

... or requesting relicensing of the stuff that is really interesting to you. The current licensing of the components developed by Nokia responds to the current reality and demand. If you challenge that reality and come up with solid demands we will consider all requests.

Also about the Nokia owned components, I'm not a lawyer but is just common sense that the company won't sue you for experimenting with Maemo components in other platforms. Personally I would see it as a proof of the interest component X is having out of the Nokia devices or the Maemo platform and a strong argument to consider the relicensing.

Again, we are interested seeing people experimenting with Maemo and its compatible devices. Licenses are there to avoid legal or business misuse, but within the terms of experimentation and fair play they shouldn't be an obstacle.

Not entirely, but closely related.

From Nokia's point of view, they want to see an example of what is possible before they invest time and money in opening up code and development processes.

From my point of view (and I assume the view of other hackers/devs), I don't want to sink a lot of time into a project that might be doomed from the start. My three big concerns are:
- licensing issues
- not having a say in the direction development goes
- having no recourse if Nokia stops maintaining said closed source code.

The situation really breaks my heart in a way, but it seems like we're in a catch-22.

Come near little guinea pig, have you some time to spare

Sorry your avatar was calling to me

Working for one of the biggest software company's around I know that there is a big difference between what "tech people" "feel" and what the Legal department "feels". I'm not doubting your words, but I would not feel comfortable unless there is a clear message from nokia inc (tm) that they grant a licence to use any nokia owned Meamo libs etc on non-Nokia hardware. Of course there might be restrictions like not for commercial purpose/no resell or that it cannot be used preloaded or <insert your favorite restriction here>. But I have a (healthy AFIAK) distrust in any legal thing seen I don't known enough of that gibberish stuff.

And it would then also be a bonus to know what/if there are things in maemo closed source that NOT nokia owned but licence by nokia from others to use in Meamo on the nokia devices. As this is not nokia to give...

I simply try to sum up what would go against this IMHO, like Johnx did:

* Nokia has parts of the Meamo stack as closed source because they (and it's their right - I'm not debating that) consider this as the "competitive edge" for the nokia devices. Fair enough, but part of this seams to be in a area where the real advantage of using Meamo would be like in power management or ARM optimisation, so there is not much incentive to actually use the current maemo stack without those parts over other currently non-optimised distro's. Unless Nokia would put engineer resources in helping out with problems on their closed things on a non-nokia platform, which I frankly doubt.

* Parts that are now closed source (that gui-brower ui thingy part for example) will be replaced in a future version with a open sourced stack - so there is not much point in rewriting the current closed GUI part for example as it will be obsolete in the sense of not following meamo on nokia, however it's not clear when this will happen, what the roadmap is and what exactly this includes.

Bottom line is that IMHO if Nokia is really interested in having people messing around with maemo on other non-nokia devices licensing should be at least cleared up.

Also it would be nice if it was clear if Nokia would make any kind of commitment whatsoever to help out/adapt if needed (I do completely understand that Nokia would not "support" other devices,more thinking in the line of some kind of "best effort" or so) on the parts they control (or that this never would happen).

Or to open up the sources for closed parts that would be not be maintained when a new OS does not support the HW anymore. This would be also possibly tremendous beneficial for N800/N810 owners once these devices are out of the nokia "lifecycle"..
And would not really conflict with the "competitive edge" idea, seen older hw is by definition only a cost to support.

And then we still have a bit of a "roadmap" Q's of course

Just my 2cents of course and mainly thinking out loud...

There are many interesting points, all of them deserving a good discussion. Some evening ideas:

- Don't be too obsessed about "competitive edge" (others call it "differentiation"). It is only one of the many potential reasons to have a package closed - http://wiki.maemo.org/Why_the_closed_packages . I bet "legacy" is as heavy, and relicensing in those cases is almost a matter of priorities, time and resources.

- A lawyer will say what the license says. A lawyer won't say anything contradicticting a license. If you need a paper signed by a lawyer to start hacking then definitely you'd better invest your time in something else. However, investing it challenging the current Maemo platform you will contribute in its improvement and evolution. Even our lawyers understand that.

- Then again, in the short history of Maemo licenses have been... "challenged" sometimes by some good hackers for the sake of experimentation and research of alternatives. Ask them about the feedback or treatment they got from Nokia.

- Licenses are texts that can change when the context and priorities change. For instance, hackers interested porting your component to another platform means probably a different context and perhaps ven a diffrent priority.

- The Maemo SW team is a busy one and opening components takes a significant work even if you don't touch the code (which normally is not the case). We wouldn't go through a massive relicensing only to see if there is an interest. Most of the times is the other way around: first there is an external interest that can cause an internal reaction, the result of which might be the relicensing of what really matters.

Oh, and the spreadsheet at http://wiki.maemo.org/Task:Components_and_packages shows also the packages not owned by Nokia.

cheers, missed the 3the party stuff in the odo file...,
for the "law" matter, I rest my case for the moment, after adding a link to a certain blog about "key principles I hold dear when developing Linux based products around the maemo.org." of a Nokia VP to the discussion