Active Topics
-
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 2 days, 15 hrs ago -
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 2 days, 16 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 3 days, 8 hrs ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 4 days, 5 hrs ago -
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 5 days, 12 hrs ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to momcilo For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2011-08-05
, 22:46
|
|
Posts: 673 |
Thanked: 856 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
|
#412
|
Originally Posted by Estel
Thank you for sharing the information.
Much more interesting (and less based on unproved assumption) research about bme was done by joerg_rw, shadowjk, 412b and others - I recommend searching for and reading their findings.
Basically, my uneducated (and possibly wrong) "short conclusion" is that replacing bme would bring need for rewriting many other maemo parts (API?), + loss of possibility to charge @ 500 mA from computer USB port (only 100 mA - ho ever, charging via wall charger wouldn't be limited). Long story short, doable, but hard and requiring much, *much* work.
Also, I agree that asking about releasing source code for bme *or* even some simple replacement entity (tm) from Nokians is pure waste of time. Cause obvious, historical reasons
__________________
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
 |
|
2011-08-05
, 22:59
|
|
Posts: 1,625 |
Thanked: 998 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
|
#413
|
Originally Posted by momcilo
thank you for the clarification.
[...]
I would like to explore the possibility of implementing open source alternative to stock bme. It does not need to outperform the Nokia bme.
by performance, you mean the time it takes to recharge the battery (in whole or in part) or is there anything else?
that's possibly made up by the aptitude to regulate the currant?
could the battery explode if it is charged too long?
there were rumours about laptop batteries that had that problem, a few years ago, i believe.
|
|
2011-08-05
, 23:39
|
|
Posts: 2,802 |
Thanked: 4,491 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#414
|
Originally Posted by momcilo
Both are pretty much debunked in the bug report's comments, there just isn't any interest from the copyright owner to open the code.
Bug 9314 - Re-license BME
So far the bme has following two reasons for being closed sourced:
- security
- differentiation
The question applies to 770, N800, N810, N900.
| The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to lma For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2011-08-10
, 14:38
|
|
Posts: 1,411 |
Thanked: 1,330 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Tatooine
|
#415
|
I'd like to ask a question to the council:
Why is Epitaph being allowed to promote his 'app' here on TMO, considering that he's clearly breaking the terms of the GPL?
Just one example (of many): Contained in the 'app' is the Bash binary. The GPL states that if you are going to redistribute GPL code, you must make the source of your app available.
He was hosting the app on Sourceforge, but it was removed from there - possibly due to me reporting it.
He has repeatedly refused to make the source available.
I'd like to know why maemo.org allows his thread and his signature here? By not taking any action, they appear to be condoning it.
I'm personally interested in this as it seems to go against FOSS principles, and as someone who has contributed time and effort to the open-souce world it makes me angry he gets away with it.
Thanks for listening.
Last edited by jedi; 2011-08-10 at 22:30.
Why is Epitaph being allowed to promote his 'app' here on TMO, considering that he's clearly breaking the terms of the GPL?
Just one example (of many): Contained in the 'app' is the Bash binary. The GPL states that if you are going to redistribute GPL code, you must make the source of your app available.
He was hosting the app on Sourceforge, but it was removed from there - possibly due to me reporting it.
He has repeatedly refused to make the source available.
I'd like to know why maemo.org allows his thread and his signature here? By not taking any action, they appear to be condoning it.
I'm personally interested in this as it seems to go against FOSS principles, and as someone who has contributed time and effort to the open-souce world it makes me angry he gets away with it.
Thanks for listening.
__________________
May the source be with you.
May the source be with you.
Last edited by jedi; 2011-08-10 at 22:30.
| The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to jedi For This Useful Post: | ||
abill_uk, b-man, Daneel, don_falcone, Estel, fw190, Helmuth, ivyking, javispedro, lma, Mentalist Traceur, momcilo, number41, onethreealpha, Rauha, slender, ysss | ||
|
|
2011-08-10
, 15:12
|
|
Posts: 673 |
Thanked: 856 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
|
#416
|
Originally Posted by jedi
I second the question, especially after the threats by epitaph.
I'd like to ask a question to the council:
Why is Epitaph being allowed to promote his 'app' here on TMO, considering that he's clearly breaking the terms of the GPL?
__________________
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
 |
|
2011-08-10
, 18:53
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 7,109 |
Thanked: 8,820 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
#417
|
Can we just ban and clean him and delete his thread? Or is that too draconian for his misdeeds?
__________________
qole.org --- twitter --- Easy Debian wiki page
Please don't send me a private message, post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you all for your donations!
qole.org --- twitter --- Easy Debian wiki page
Please don't send me a private message, post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you all for your donations!
|
|
2011-08-10
, 21:47
|
|
Posts: 560 |
Thanked: 422 times |
Joined on Mar 2011
|
#418
|
It's possible that I missed something but has any ground been made with regards to my question above?
 |
|
2011-08-10
, 23:19
|
|
Posts: 5,028 |
Thanked: 8,613 times |
Joined on Mar 2011
|
#419
|
Lately, a possible source of Pali's problem has been "revealed" - he's using kernel.org kernel sources (with maemo kernel diffs attached + kp diffs at top of it), not maemo kernel + kp diffs.
It was suggested, that this may result in packages interface going crazy (by using debian packaging criteria, instead of maemo ones). Although, keep in mind that it's only guesswork and it's *not* confirmed. Some people, including me, suggested that easiest way to check it, is Pali switching his method to maemo kernel + kp diffs and see if this fix problem.
Also, of course, You were right about kp42 being in extras - my info was not actual one. Still, I think that we both agree it doesn't depreciate rationale behind my arguments
---
Of course I also "second" jedi request - I'm glad that someone finally point that problem. Mentioned "individual" is violating GPL for long time, completely ignoring (or even showing hostility to) request to comply with GPL. Same happened with "his" set of scripts, containing work of others without giving proper credits. Not to mention overall trolling behavior...
Last edited by Estel; 2011-08-11 at 23:32.
It was suggested, that this may result in packages interface going crazy (by using debian packaging criteria, instead of maemo ones). Although, keep in mind that it's only guesswork and it's *not* confirmed. Some people, including me, suggested that easiest way to check it, is Pali switching his method to maemo kernel + kp diffs and see if this fix problem.
Also, of course, You were right about kp42 being in extras - my info was not actual one. Still, I think that we both agree it doesn't depreciate rationale behind my arguments
---
Of course I also "second" jedi request - I'm glad that someone finally point that problem. Mentioned "individual" is violating GPL for long time, completely ignoring (or even showing hostility to) request to comply with GPL. Same happened with "his" set of scripts, containing work of others without giving proper credits. Not to mention overall trolling behavior...
__________________
N900's aluminum backcover / body replacement
-
N900's HDMI-Out
-
Camera cover MOD
-
Measure battery's real capacity on-device
-
TrueCrypt 7.1 | ereswap | bnf
-
Hardware's mods research is costly. To support my work, please consider donating. Thank You!
N900's aluminum backcover / body replacement
-
N900's HDMI-Out
-
Camera cover MOD
-
Measure battery's real capacity on-device
-
TrueCrypt 7.1 | ereswap | bnf
-
Hardware's mods research is costly. To support my work, please consider donating. Thank You!
Last edited by Estel; 2011-08-11 at 23:32.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Estel For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-08-11
, 07:35
|
|
Posts: 2,154 |
Thanked: 8,464 times |
Joined on May 2010
|
#420
|
@Estel:
If I change kernel-power tarball to http://repository.maemo.org/pool/mae...28.orig.tar.gz (but only for new version of kernel-power), will maemo.org package interface really working? Are you sure?
I think that your argument that package X does not have same tarball as package Y is not correct. (X=kernel-power; Y=kernel) Package kernel-power has nothing with package kernel. kernel-power is in Extras and kernel is in SDK. Both are in different repositories and both has dfferent names.
So this argument is like that "Package bash3 must have same orig tarball that telepathy-gabble". Both packages are in different repositories and both has different names. And no problem with packages bash3 and telepathy-gabble.
Can somebody from Council comment my post? It is true? I think that each package can have its own orig tarball. Why not?
---
Now I see that I'm maintainer of all kernel-power packages. So this is last blocker for releasing new version!
If I change kernel-power tarball to http://repository.maemo.org/pool/mae...28.orig.tar.gz (but only for new version of kernel-power), will maemo.org package interface really working? Are you sure?
I think that your argument that package X does not have same tarball as package Y is not correct. (X=kernel-power; Y=kernel) Package kernel-power has nothing with package kernel. kernel-power is in Extras and kernel is in SDK. Both are in different repositories and both has dfferent names.
So this argument is like that "Package bash3 must have same orig tarball that telepathy-gabble". Both packages are in different repositories and both has different names. And no problem with packages bash3 and telepathy-gabble.
Can somebody from Council comment my post? It is true? I think that each package can have its own orig tarball. Why not?
---
Now I see that I'm maintainer of all kernel-power packages. So this is last blocker for releasing new version!
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to pali For This Useful Post: | ||
In a laptop, that process is usually not within the operating system, but in mobile devices vendors use simpler batteries, and the control is delegated to the software for two reasons:
I would like to explore the possibility of implementing open source alternative to stock bme. It does not need to outperform the Nokia bme.
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html