[Under vote] Open source software distributed via store.ovi.com - Page 2 - maemo.org

Active Topics

Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 10 hrs, 6 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, 19 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

	benny1967	2009-11-23 , 08:37
	Posts: 3,790 \| Thanked: 5,718 times \| Joined on Mar 2006 @ Vienna, Austria	#11

@ attila77, NvyUs:

There's Solution#1, proposed by Quim:

Solution #1: maemo.org Downloads is all what OSS developers need
Posted on 2009-11-21 20:09 UTC by Quim Gil.

maemo.org Downloads is a good channel for publication, promotion and distribution of good quality open source software. The publishing process is open source and community friendly, and provides a community Quality Assurance process useful for developers. Complemented with the Extras-testing and Extras-devel repositories, a free software developer don't need anything else.

I voted for this solution - mainly because I'm irritated about this whole thing and don't see where it's coming from... and where it leads us to.

Either it's meant as a response to threads like these
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=34661
(where developers complain that it's difficult to get commercial software into Ovi Store). If so, I may have missed the point of the privious discussions, as I thought they would be about non-free, proprietary software that can't be distributed through Extras in the first place.

If there's a different background, then again I'm glad I voted for #1... It took years (literally) to establish Extras as the one repository for community software. Remember the days when you couldn't install application X because it depended on library Y which was provided by repository Z which you never heard about before? And you had to chase the forum for solutions? I'm not sure if I want a similar situation with Ovi and Extras.

Maybe before discussing the solutions, it would be cool to know what the problem is and why we'd want free software to move to the Nokia-controlled Ovi Store rather than the community-controlled Extras repository?

Quote & Reply |

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to benny1967 For This Useful Post:
anidel, attila77, lma, sjgadsby, SubCore

attila77	2009-11-23 , 08:47
Posts: 3,319 \| Thanked: 5,610 times \| Joined on Aug 2008 @ Finland	#12

I agree (except for the minor point below), but was just wondering if it's me not seeing something.

Originally Posted by benny1967

php?t=34661[/url]
as I thought they would be about non-free, proprietary software that can't be distributed through Extras in the first place.

AFAIK you can distribute non-free things in the, well, non-free section of Extras

The downside compared to Ovi being you have to organize payment yourself.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to attila77 For This Useful Post:
GeneralAntilles, jjx, sjgadsby

	benny1967	2009-11-23 , 09:11
	Posts: 3,790 \| Thanked: 5,718 times \| Joined on Mar 2006 @ Vienna, Austria	#13

attila77, you're right... I'm not aware of any documented process to get apps into the non-free section of Extras, though. Seems to be one of these "...as it happens" things.

Quote & Reply |

	qgil	2009-11-23 , 10:13
	Posts: 3,105 \| Thanked: 11,088 times \| Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)	#14

Just in case this is useful for the discussion of ope source apps in Ovi:
http://repository.maemo.org/extras/p...ntle/non-free/
http://repository.maemo.org/extras-t...ntle/non-free/
http://repository.maemo.org/extras-d...ntle/non-free/

http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_E...ee.22_packages

__________________
http://maemo.org/profile/view/qgil/ + http://qt-project.org

Quote & Reply |

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post:
attila77, eiffel, lma, Netweaver

	GeneralAntilles	2009-11-23 , 13:47
	Posts: 5,478 \| Thanked: 5,222 times \| Joined on Jan 2006 @ St. Petersburg, FL	#15

If there's no payment involved, I absolutely don't see the point. Unless Nokia is planning on completely removing Extras from devices and making users print out and fax in liability waivers to add it, then what possible reason could developers have for wanting to distribute open source software through Ovi instead of Extras?

__________________
Ryan Abel

Quote & Reply |

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to GeneralAntilles For This Useful Post:
attila77, Jaffa, mikkov, NvyUs, sjgadsby, VDVsx, yerga

drm	2009-11-23 , 13:57
Posts: 320 \| Thanked: 108 times \| Joined on Oct 2009	#16

Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles

If there's no payment involved, I absolutely don't see the point. Unless Nokia is planning on completely removing Extras from devices and making users print out and fax in liability waivers to add it, then what possible reason could developers have for wanting to distribute open source software through Ovi instead of Extras?

Ovi store could link to extras. The reason would be more people downloading the software from extras. It could be on maemo.org downloads numbers… Isn’t that nice?

Quote & Reply |

	GeneralAntilles	2009-11-23 , 14:15
	Posts: 5,478 \| Thanked: 5,222 times \| Joined on Jan 2006 @ St. Petersburg, FL	#17

Originally Posted by drm

Ovi store could link to extras. The reason would be more people downloading the software from extras. It could be on maemo.org downloads numbers… Isn’t that nice?

The proposal isn't to link to Extras to improve exposure (that's the service Maemo Select is providing), but to upload OSS software directly to Ovi. There are only two reasons I can see to do this, to prepare for a future point where payment on OSS applications through Ovi is a feasible option or because Nokia is going to do something ill-advised with Extras.

__________________
Ryan Abel

Quote & Reply |

drm	2009-11-23 , 14:32
Posts: 320 \| Thanked: 108 times \| Joined on Oct 2009	#18

Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles

The proposal isn't to link to Extras to improve exposure (that's the service Maemo Select is providing), but to upload OSS software directly to Ovi. There are only two reasons I can see to do this, to prepare for a future point where payment on OSS applications through Ovi is a feasible option or because Nokia is going to do something ill-advised with Extras.

If that’s the case I’m frontally against. If Nokia wants extras on ovi, just need to link it. It doesn’t make sense to try to sell OSS made by the community.
I created that option in the brainstorm.

Quote & Reply |

	Texrat	2009-11-23 , 21:48
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#19

I'm really afraid to ask this, and it is probably a stupid question anyway--

but why is product liability an issue for Ovi.com, and not maemo.org?

In other words, why can a developer upload a particular app to Maemo Extras without needing insurance, but not Ovi?

I must be missing something truly profound here...

__________________
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:
jjx, Stskeeps

attila77	2009-11-23 , 23:28
Posts: 3,319 \| Thanked: 5,610 times \| Joined on Aug 2008 @ Finland	#20

Originally Posted by Texrat

but why is product liability an issue for Ovi.com, and not maemo.org?

In other words, why can a developer upload a particular app to Maemo Extras without needing insurance, but not Ovi?

I think it has been discussed before (search fails me), simply put, (Nokia through) Ovi is a much juicier and tangible legal target than a community site (even if it is heavily sponsored by Nokia).