Indeed, not to mention that various community members have stepped up and written a gazillion open-source alternatives most of which improve on the built-in offering in various ways. The source of the Nokia media player is a complete non-issue IMHO.

I never fully understood why some people want the OS to be fully open source. When the market is that much competitive and Chinese manufacturers create quickly thousand of clones of devices and when Chinese immitations of N95 or N97 are abundent on the market (like there are Chinese clones of Sony, JVC or Panasonic video cameras), why give them the software that cost a company to develop millions for free to other Asian companies (in an utopia that maybe those companies will also contribute to the code and improve it).

Too much Open Source Free software might be good not that good for the developers of it - do you see Movie productions or Music productions that are FREE?

As a software developer that I know how hard is to develop software, if all the software is open source and free, then nothing to sell anymore in the software production, where will the software developers get a job? Korbe, do you give them a job?

Because Movie Companies and Music Companies don't give anything for free, and I think being an actor is more fun than being a programmer, so why don't you ask the Entertainment companies to give all they produce as Open and Free? They don't and they hunt you down if you illegaly copy some MP3 music tunes or a film. But some want the software to be just free. And I know what is the difference between Free like "Libre" and Free like "Gratis/Gratuit". From the companies in competition there is not much difference when the software is "Open"/"Libre" then it is almost "Free" to get and use, so the huge effort (financial and human) invested in it is just taken for free by another company, that may or may not contribute back.

And why Apple does not even allow to install the binaries of Mac OSX (not talking about the source code, just the output-binaries) into other PC? (now that Macs are x86 based-architecture). Apple doesn't give even the binaries to other companies, see, that is business.

UbuntuOne and Landscape are proprietary on the sever side.

On the website that I visit, they are mostly made from CSS free, so ...

And MSN..... I don's use MSN. You're still too hung up on stereotypes.

So no, my examples dont suck.

Ok, Architengi, You need to better know the FOSS world.

1) It's possible to make money with completely free (as free beer) and FOSS. (See Red Hat, Linalis, etc...).

2) FOSS isn't obligatory free (ad free beer).

3) It's possible to distribute freely music and make money. (see NIN).

4) It's difficult but possible to distribute freely movies. (see Big Buck Bunny or here)

The only obstacle? The lure of profit and power.

And the problem of Chinese copy: the PC maker (Dell, Vaio, etc ...) are facing. But they make good profits.

They do, they are pathetic. If you run a thin client which uses 100% open source software to connect to Microsoft Windows which runs 100.000.000.000.000 TB of proprietary software you are still running a complete open source operating system.

Why? Because the software running on your computer is open source. The server software runs on the server. E.g. the GPL does not kick in here, and while FSF initially wanted to target this with GPLv3 in its early design they quickly had to reevaluate that preference.

Next you're gonna complain this message was routed by some proprietary Cisco router which source code you weren't able to see gimme a break geez!

RedHat sells service; Nokia sells end products (combination of hardware + software + service). This was explained earlier in this thread.

BTW, what kind of proprietary search engine do you use? Surely not the proprietary Google?

I just don't want all my work to be open and free and to live from services (technical support or customizations), just because there is not the same money from that, so in the end I will have to look for a job.

All the developers that make their source code public will take the job and the bread from the hand of other developers.
For example: If Office is free, the developers of Quick Office, WordPerfect, even the MS Office will have to find another job.

For humanity's progress I love Open Source, like I would love no patents. But in todays world even the human genes (made by nature) are patented.
Now, the question is, the companies that researched and found that gene usage, can they get the money back from all that investment in research? The same with the code, if it is not closed and everybody has access to its source, will be the same interest for the companies to produce that code?

Check the software running this forum, and check its license

Isn't it proprietary?

>>> Korbe wrote:
>>> It's possible to make money with completely free (as free beer) and FOSS. (See Red Hat, Linalis, etc...).

I did not hear ever about Linalis, I heard of RedHat but not that much in the last years, but I hear all the time about iPhone OSX and how nice and easy to use it is. And the same with Mac OSX for computers. Which Mac OSX system is not even at binaries let be installed on other x86 systems than Apple's. Smart, huh?

That is why I am not here often. (except since the announcement of the N900).

And allnameswereout, please, stop stereotypes, you're ridiculous.