Active Topics
-
Firefox with Leste (10)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 3 days, 6 hrs ago - more...
|
2008-06-14
, 19:50
|
|
Posts: 63 |
Thanked: 52 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ Brisbane, Australia
|
#52
|
Originally Posted by Jerome
Actually, if they linked against LGPL libraries, they need to distribute their object code to allow relinking.
Thee is also the problem of closed source libraries. If you want to upgrade major parts of the system, it is often needed to recompile them. With closed source you have to wait untill the manufacturer does it (which means between weeks and eternity if the hardware is no more supported).
__________________
Programmer, connectivity, sensors, Jolla/llornkcor technologies
Programmer, connectivity, sensors, Jolla/llornkcor technologies
|
|
2008-06-14
, 20:08
|
|
Posts: 63 |
Thanked: 52 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ Brisbane, Australia
|
#53
|
Originally Posted by qgil
I believe what he is alluding to is if Nokia were to stop developing and distributing Qt under the GPL. It would then, under the agreement with KDE Foundation, KDE could then revert Qt to a less restrictive license, BSD.
Yes, that clause is well known. What I'm asking for are plausible examples of what Nokia could do to screw things up with Qt.
__________________
Programmer, connectivity, sensors, Jolla/llornkcor technologies
Programmer, connectivity, sensors, Jolla/llornkcor technologies
|
|
2008-06-14
, 20:18
|
|
Posts: 356 |
Thanked: 231 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#54
|
Originally Posted by qgil
One scenario is coming to my mind and was mentioned by Ari (although in another context): big dump of un-announced code into Qt codebase.
Yes, that clause is well known. What I'm asking for are plausible examples of what Nokia could do to screw things up with Qt.
Generally Qt is developed in fairly open way, of course there is "secret" cooking before things are included into public tree but time between disclosure and release of stable version is relatively long so all open-source developers can test new features, develop for them etc. Also those new features are advertised before publishing so there is additional time for preparations. Big dump would break workflow of open-source working. Why? Because Qt packages in most distributions aren't coming straight from Trolltech. This is so called qt-copy maintained by KDE which are TT sources + some KDE specific tweaks. [1]
In case of such big dump KDE developers would have to make tough decision - work overnight and include unreviewed code (risking breaking of core KDE functionality) or shun it. Consequences of both outcomes would be grave. Such situation would really undermine position of Qt by Trolltech in open-source world.
[1] This is because Trolls rarely accept direct patches from outside world (copyrights). Usually they are coming with their own solutions but that can take time while KDE needs solution NOW.
 |
|
2008-06-14
, 20:25
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Mountain View (CA, USA)
|
#55
|
Originally Posted by lpotter
Which leads again to the question: What would be the business reason to do that? What would be the benefit for Nokia doing so?
I believe what he is alluding to is if Nokia were to stop developing and distributing Qt under the GPL. It would then, under the agreement with KDE Foundation, KDE could then revert Qt to a less restrictive license, BSD.
To those still concerned about Qt in the hands of Nokia: big successful businesses might be evil or not, but if they are indeed succesful is because the steps they make generate benefits & profits. When thinking about evil possibilities make sure you find a potential business benefit tied to it. If you can't, then perhaps that evil possibility is unlikely to happen.
|
|
2008-06-14
, 21:06
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Mountain View (CA, USA)
|
#56
|
Originally Posted by vvaz
Fair enough, it is sensible that some people not knowing what has been said and what is going on could be worried about this possibility. Let's look at it then.
One scenario is coming to my mind and was mentioned by Ari (although in another context): big dump of un-announced code into Qt codebase.
Quoting the press release on January, when the acquisition process was announced:
Nokia strives for an open approach to technology that will encourage and support innovation in the industry, enable fast adoption of new technologies and advance healthy competition. Nokia embraces open source technology and will take further the open source development culture found in Trolltech.
Trolltech has benefited greatly from the feedback the community has been providing while using Qt to develop free software. We respect the symbiotic relationship Qt has with the community and we wish to continue and enhance this relationship.
(...)
Nokia is committed to continue Trolltech’s current open source engagements, including honoring the KDE Free Qt agreement, and we will seek to strengthen our support of KDE in the future. As a first step Nokia will apply to become a Patron of KDE.
That was the promise of Nokia to the Trolltech team and Qt users in the industry and the open source community. The current open development model has been good enough to produce this technology interesting to Nokia and many customers, in the commercial and community contexts. Break this promise, break this development model and... What would Nokia win? What would Nokia lose? What would be the business benefit?
 |
|
2008-06-14
, 22:19
|
|
Posts: 880 |
Thanked: 264 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Cambridge, UK
|
#57
|
I commented on AriJ's blog, but I'll put in my 0.02 euros here.
DRM *could* be USED fairly - i.e. a proper statement by the media author/publishers of how the DRM affects the customer, so that the customer can make an informed decision to accept the product or not.
DRM *could* be IMPLEMENTED fairly - i.e. so that the media data was protected or watermarked without impeding the customer's fair use, and using a standards based codec or open source playback software.. e.g. encrypt the data using a published/standard algorithm so that the consumer can back up the data and also back up the encryption keys. That would mean the consumer would NOT lose access to the media if they changed device (upgraded, replaced after breaking etc), nor could the publisher arbitrarily revoke access to the rightfully-paid-for media. Since the media data was keyed to an individual, that person would want to take care to not leak copies to the world!
So far all DRM schemes in real world use fail the above tests, many are astoundingly unreasonable! Worst of all, many consumers do not understand the situation - I am amazed Sony survived their various exploits with root kits etc, personally I will never touch another of their products. I see the situation as a time bomb waiting to go off!
sorry for the long rant.
DRM *could* be USED fairly - i.e. a proper statement by the media author/publishers of how the DRM affects the customer, so that the customer can make an informed decision to accept the product or not.
DRM *could* be IMPLEMENTED fairly - i.e. so that the media data was protected or watermarked without impeding the customer's fair use, and using a standards based codec or open source playback software.. e.g. encrypt the data using a published/standard algorithm so that the consumer can back up the data and also back up the encryption keys. That would mean the consumer would NOT lose access to the media if they changed device (upgraded, replaced after breaking etc), nor could the publisher arbitrarily revoke access to the rightfully-paid-for media. Since the media data was keyed to an individual, that person would want to take care to not leak copies to the world!
So far all DRM schemes in real world use fail the above tests, many are astoundingly unreasonable! Worst of all, many consumers do not understand the situation - I am amazed Sony survived their various exploits with root kits etc, personally I will never touch another of their products. I see the situation as a time bomb waiting to go off!
sorry for the long rant.
|
|
2008-06-14
, 22:39
|
|
Posts: 356 |
Thanked: 231 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#58
|
@qgil
Problem with Nokia and Trolltech is that we don't really know why Nokia bought TT.
There are several possible reasons:
1) Qt will be Next Big Thing in Nokias ecosystem and company wants total control over toolkit - this possibility was mentioned on margin of some of press releases; problem with OS is - for that Nokia doesn't need open-source - completely irrelevant.
2) Nokia wants to buy company which is going well financially to improve its own profits - this one is impossible because TT had financial problems as was revealed by digging around Oslo stock exchange (nothing big but...)
3) Dive into open source while investing next to nothing (AFAIK it was ca. 1.5% of yesteryear profits - comparing with my 'finances': several bags of peanuts).
Third cause was mentioned in letters quoted by you but this doesn't hold. The biggest engagement of Nokia into open-source so far were things connected with Internet Tables. Overwhelming majority of contributions linked earlier are related to tablets (OMAP support for X, D-BUS, etc.). But Internet Tablets are done in GTK! Also there were quick assertions that ITs will stay in GTK land.
So, why Nokia bought Trolltech and what is long term strategy for it in its portfolio?
Problem with Nokia and Trolltech is that we don't really know why Nokia bought TT.
There are several possible reasons:
1) Qt will be Next Big Thing in Nokias ecosystem and company wants total control over toolkit - this possibility was mentioned on margin of some of press releases; problem with OS is - for that Nokia doesn't need open-source - completely irrelevant.
2) Nokia wants to buy company which is going well financially to improve its own profits - this one is impossible because TT had financial problems as was revealed by digging around Oslo stock exchange (nothing big but...)
3) Dive into open source while investing next to nothing (AFAIK it was ca. 1.5% of yesteryear profits - comparing with my 'finances': several bags of peanuts).
Third cause was mentioned in letters quoted by you but this doesn't hold. The biggest engagement of Nokia into open-source so far were things connected with Internet Tables. Overwhelming majority of contributions linked earlier are related to tablets (OMAP support for X, D-BUS, etc.). But Internet Tablets are done in GTK! Also there were quick assertions that ITs will stay in GTK land.
So, why Nokia bought Trolltech and what is long term strategy for it in its portfolio?
|
|
2008-06-15
, 00:05
|
|
Posts: 373 |
Thanked: 56 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
@ Ottawa, ON
|
#59
|
Originally Posted by Texrat
As with any complex system, the answers are never simple or obvious unless you make simlifying and sometimes invalidating approximations.
But-- that perception is created by willfully glossing over the entirety, and cherry-picking sound bites that (appear to) reinforce OSS religious paranoia! It's self-fulfilling.
Again: has Nokia been moving toward increased openness, or away?
As complex as the issue itself can be, the answer is simple and obvious.
There is absolutely no debate as to the way Nokia is moving currently (or has moved in the past). I appaud them wholeheartedly for their vision and courage in trying to move the whole industry in a more open direction. It is also obvious that they are leading the pack in making these steps in a very concrete way. They also are heavily contributing (often without any fanfare) behind the scenes in key upstream projects (X, bluez and kernel in particular). For these reasons I am supporting them with my wallet.
However, the debatable thing is the direction they are pointing in for the future thrust. Ari's last several comments contain statements that indicate a mismatch between the direction Nokia's drifting vs. the direction it is pointing that is sending a few people into a panic. The reason that people are negatively vocal is not because they seek to damage Nokia but rather they want to make sure Nokia keeps steering the the more open course and does not cater to the likes of DRM/locking and instead steers around those icebergs (to completely abuse an analogy).
|
|
2008-06-15
, 12:00
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Mountain View (CA, USA)
|
#60
|
Originally Posted by vvaz
Maybe the problem is that some people don't really believe the reasons Nokia is putting in clear words. They go down to conspiracy theories, don't find clear answers and end up saying that the move is unclear. But... what about just trusting the sensible explanations of Nokia?
Problem with Nokia and Trolltech is that we don't really know why Nokia bought TT.
(...)
So, why Nokia bought Trolltech and what is long term strategy for it in its portfolio?
Again from the press release:
Trolltech's Qt based technology assets facilitate application development for multiple platforms and devices
(...)
In addition to the key software assets, its talented team will play an important role in accelerating the implementation of Nokia's software strategy.
Cross-platform frameworks enable innovation across our device portfolio and on PCs
Nokia’s strategy requires that we enable development of compelling applications and services for multiple platforms across the Nokia device range and onto PCs. The use of common frameworks and APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) on top of our and other’s platforms will enable this in an efficient way.
(...)
Our software strategy is based on multiple software platforms with common cross-platform layers.
(...)
Nokia will continue to embrace open and other standards based technologies. We believe open source will continue to have a key role in creating exciting user experiences, and we will work actively to further contribute to and to empower the open source community.
Considering the size of Nokia and its business, and considering the role "Qt Everywhere" would play in this software strategy, adding the team that develops Qt to the Nokia software units makes a lot of sense. Is this so hard to understand or believe?
Think in the wider context and think in the long run and you will understand why acquiring Trolltech makes more sense than anything else. The code (open or not) is just a product, and if Nokia was looking only after the code then buying licenses would have been enough. What counts is the people and ways of working that were able to produce that code.
By the way, to make Qt work on Maemo in addition to GTK+ is a rather simple issue compared to that. In fact, the community has almost done it already. Two weeks ago we explained how Qt is going to enter in Maemo from now to Harmattan.
I think the flap wouldn't be the same if the community at large would be aware about what Nokia is doing and contributing in the free software community.
Of course is not their fault. It shows that we at Nokia have to improve on our communication to this community at large. I might feel uncomfortable about words, but I'm totally comfortable with the actions Nokia is doing in open source.
http://maemo.org/profile/view/qgil/ + http://qt-project.org