View Full Version : Closed Source Packages in Maemo
korbé
10-04-2009, 06:25 PM
Just to clarify copyright vs license: The creator always has the copyright on what I've created, and it's him/her who decides how weak or strong the license for other people is. It's his/her decision only as he/she created it, no matter whether it's music, books or software code.
Pushing the creator (e.g. me) into using a specific licence means reducing my personal freedom and pushing me into something ideological. And “Ideology is a brain disease,” to quote Jerry Rubin. Hence I'm happy that there are different licenses available, from weak to strong, and that the creator (Nokia, you, me, whoever) can choose.
I respect the creator's decision and can of coutrse question it.
If good arguments are provided creators revise their decisions. For example Carsten filed requests with very good arguments in Bugzilla to open the code of example statusbar-alarm-dbus-api (#4560). Hence Nokia has changed that code to open source.
That's how it works, and I like it.
I know the different between licence and copyright.
In your example, the problem is:
We need to provide evidence for have the freedom.
Normally, these are criminals who are deprived of liberty, if their crimes are proved by facts.
Make Free software don't prevent to make money.
It just prevents the creator of the software is put in a dominant position and it re-balance the powers.
To understand how to make money with free software, we must understand this phrase:
"Because you make money of it, not with it."
Ok, I'm going to sleep.
At this afternoon. :D
Texrat
10-04-2009, 06:53 PM
I noticed that here, some people (like you), regardless of the evidence, if it remit in question the decisions of Nokia they refuse to hear (or see) reason.
You should read more. You're wrong. Getting to be a trend I see.
Texrat
10-04-2009, 06:55 PM
Now is your freedom more important than the freedom of the creator to choose the licence he/she wants?
EXACTLY.
It's sheer arrogance to assume the creator's preferences are moot.
johnkzin
10-04-2009, 06:58 PM
I noticed that here, some people (like you), regardless of the evidence, if it remit in question the decisions of Nokia they refuse to hear (or see) reason.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Texrat
10-04-2009, 07:02 PM
I'm done with it anyway. When one side of the debate is 100% entrenched in an impractical extreme, there's little chance of consensus.
EDIT: sorry, that was too broad. It's not the debate here that's polar as much as some participants.
Aside from the ethical problems with non-Free software there's a pretty solid argument that including it in Maemo is a bad tactical call for Nokia themselves. Firstly, one of the platform's major (and virtually unique) selling points is its openness, and compromising that weakens it as a selling point. Secondly, Maemo is competing for developer attention with the iPhone, Android and (somewhat less) Symbian. All the while it remains the oddball little OS that runs on the Nokia Tablets that's a tough battle to win. Getting Maemo onto cheap Chinese knock-offs, onto decent Taiwanese phones and, preferably, a few netbooks, would be a good thing for the sustainability of the platform as a whole, and a good thing for Nokia themselves.
Nokia are fundamentally a hardware company, and they're good at it, and making the best Maemo-running kit there is should be enough to sell the phones if Maemo is an attractive platform at all. By way of analogy, I have a Thinkpad laptop - when I bought it it must have cost about twice what you'd pay for a cheap machine of the same headline spec, running the exact same software. The Thinkpad's worth it because it's quality kit.
Raising the barriers to other implementations of Maemo by keeping strategic bits of the software closed will differentiate the Nokias from the mass market; the risk is that consumers will simply say "I don't want that - it's weird and different."
Texrat
10-04-2009, 07:35 PM
Getting Maemo onto cheap Chinese knock-offs, onto decent Taiwanese phones and, preferably, a few netbooks, would be a good thing for the sustainability of the platform as a whole, and a good thing for Nokia themselves.
That's highly speculative and reliant on too many "perfect world" dependencies that never really pan out... unfortunately.
bobthebuilder
10-04-2009, 08:06 PM
Aside from the ethical problems with non-Free software
What ethical problems?
What system of ethics makes it unethical to make money for hardwork?
To sell a license to use software?
Heck I love open source software, but closed source software is not evil, programmers need to eat food too.
johnkzin
10-04-2009, 08:16 PM
What ethical problems?
What system of ethics makes it unethical to make money for hardwork?
To sell a license to use software?
Heck I love open source software, but closed source software is not evil, programmers need to eat food too.
And companies that fund programmers have a fiduciary responsibility to their owners/share-holders/etc. to make a return on investment from the funding of those programmers.
Regardless of whether or not Nokia (or any company) is making the best choice, or the correct choice, it's their right to choose to license the code that they own in the manner that they choose. Unethical would be denying them that choice.
olighak
10-04-2009, 09:00 PM
What ethical problems?
What system of ethics makes it unethical to make money for hardwork?
To sell a license to use software?
Heck I love open source software, but closed source software is not evil, programmers need to eat food too.
Exactly. This is a strange discussion, but probably to be expected as the traditional linux crowd is not as most people.
If someone has a "philosophical" problem with paying someone a license fee for a closed-code piece of software, then with the N900 they´ll be able to probably do without doing so.
For us other ones, who don´t have much time program anything, nor care, we can buy licenses for those thing´s we´d like. I hope the open code guys understand that not everyone who buys a N900 is going to turn into a linux coder or a open source fanatic...
I for example like the following applications and am very willing to pay someone a license fee for coding them for my upcoming N900, and do absolutely not care whether they are open or closed code:
Worldmate / Psiloc World Traveller
Handy Weather (1.0 - 3.0 versions with precipitation)
Handy Clock
Quickoffice-like application to open MS Office (yes sacriligious!) documents on my N900
That´s all I´ll need. I know ftp and telnet programs are out there and both the Opera browser and Firefox exist for linux so I should be good.
What ethical problems?
What system of ethics makes it unethical to make money for hardwork?
To sell a license to use software?
Heck I love open source software, but closed source software is not evil, programmers need to eat food too.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
johnkzin
10-04-2009, 09:23 PM
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
That's not ethics, that ideology.
bobthebuilder
10-04-2009, 09:23 PM
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
I am familiar with the philosophy of the GNU program. I reject it as idealistic, not mention wrong on several points. You can argue the Open Source software is more secure or that you feel more comfortable running it on your machine because you know what its doing. But you cannot say that someone is doing something unethical or immoral by licensing closed source software.
I would say I use 90 percent open source software, or free in the gnu sense, but not for moralistic reasons I just like it. :)
That's highly speculative and reliant on too many "perfect world" dependencies that never really pan out... unfortunately.
Such as? The iPhone store has made it pretty clear that the key 'differentiator' for smartphones/pocket computers is in add-on apps, and that means attracting developers. Google get that, which is why they're pushing to get a critical mass of Android running on as many different units as possible. How attractive will Maemo really be if it only runs on the N900?
johnkzin
10-04-2009, 09:44 PM
Such as? The iPhone store has made it pretty clear that the key 'differentiator' for smartphones/pocket computers is in add-on apps, and that means attracting developers. (...) How attractive will Maemo really be if it only runs on the N900?
How many different machines does iPhone OSX run on?
I don't seem to recall people saying that the iPhone is an under-achiever in the market...
What system of ethics makes it unethical to make money for hardwork?
To sell a license to use software?
Heck I love open source software, but closed source software is not evil, programmers need to eat food too.
It's not about money; it never has been. The GNU project made money selling their software from the very beginning. It's about freedom, and how taking that away from people just because you can isn't a good way to behave. It's secondarily about the idea that pooled efforts give better results than divided ones.
For the anti-free software folks in this thread, I'd ask you this - why's Nokia going as far down the road of using and creating free software as they are if they didn't think it would make them more money than staying proprietary, even when they already had their own proprietary OS?
Texrat
10-04-2009, 09:54 PM
How attractive will Maemo really be if it only runs on the N900?
You're building a straw man. My contention was with the theory that Chinese knockoffs will be good for Nokia.
Texrat
10-04-2009, 09:55 PM
For the anti-free software folks in this thread
Another straw man.
Who can you identify here as "anti-free software"?
bobthebuilder
10-04-2009, 09:57 PM
It's not about money; it never has been. The GNU project made money selling their software from the very beginning. It's about freedom, and how taking that away from people just because you can isn't a good way to behave. It's secondarily about the idea that pooled efforts give better results than divided ones.
For the anti-free software folks in this thread, I'd ask you this - why's Nokia going as far down the road of using and creating free software as they are if they didn't think it would make them more money than staying proprietary, even when they already had their own proprietary OS?
I dont think you should call anyone in this thread anti-free software.
I am not arguing against free software. I am arguing against free software being the only ethical or moral option.
I appreciate the collaboration done to create open source software and I think good things have come frome it. Things I use on a daily basis. I agree that it is good to see people voluntarilly give of their time to make free software, but I do not think it is unethical to make closed software. And I clearly want to point out that at this point in time closed source software is much more lucrative.
How many people make a living off open source software compared to closed source?
The programmers need to eat and one way to ensure they eat is to sell licenses to use their software. And there is nothing wrong with that.
I dont think you should call anyone in this thread anti-free software.
That's fair; it's an excessively crude characterisation. Nevertheless, there's basically a two-sided debate here, and I simply mean the people on the other side.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the core idea of GNU\Open Source movement is to 'fight' the 'oppressive' closed source by making free (libre) alternatives to them?
Not by talking smack about what licenses other people\companies use or trying to control other people\entities to use specific licenses that WE want..
WTF is the base of the arguments here again?
Luke-Jr
10-04-2009, 10:20 PM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the core idea of GNU\Open Source movement is to 'fight' the 'oppressive' closed source by making free (libre) alternatives to them?
Not by talking smack about what licenses other people\companies use or trying to control other people\entities to use specific licenses that WE want..
WTF is the base of the arguments here again?
You might have a point if Nokia released the specifications required to write alternate free software drivers.
@Luke-Jr: free software drivers to what components now?
If you fabricate your own hardware components, then you'd be responsible for its own driver.
If you don't, then you'll have to negotiate for the drivers with the hardware providers.
johnkzin
10-04-2009, 10:24 PM
You might have a point if Nokia released the specifications required to write alternate free software drivers.
No, he has a point even without that.
I for example like the following applications and am very willing to pay someone a license fee for coding them for my upcoming N900, and do absolutely not care whether they are open or closed code:
We know Maemo 5 isn't the end of the line, and that certain parts of the platform are already slated to become supported only by the community in the future. Will you care then if something you rely on is broken by the Harmattan upgrade and the community can't fix it because it's closed?
Texrat
10-04-2009, 10:44 PM
That's fair; it's an excessively crude characterisation. Nevertheless, there's basically a two-sided debate here, and I simply mean the people on the other side.
Very few here are in a polar position on the subject, and those who are tend to be solidly in the "no closed source at all" camp.
Luke-Jr
10-04-2009, 10:48 PM
@Luke-Jr: free software drivers to what components now?
If you fabricate your own hardware components, then you'd be responsible for its own driver.
If you don't, then you'll have to negotiate for the drivers with the hardware providers.
If I buy the hardware, I have a right to use it. Nokia denies me those rights with the N810's GPS and battery charger. Providing me a broken (or even working) proprietary blob that can use the hardware is not equivalent to giving me the information required to use it myself.
Texrat
10-04-2009, 10:53 PM
If I buy the hardware, I have a right to use it. Nokia denies me those rights with the N810's GPS and battery charger.
*sigh*
Civics 101 is failing people. That isn't a right, it's a privilege.
But semantics aside, find a competitor who does better, and go with them. Solved.
If I buy the hardware, I have a right to use it. Nokia denies me those rights with the N810's GPS and battery charger. Providing me a broken (or even working) proprietary blob that can use the hardware is not equivalent to giving me the information required to use it myself.
Wait, does any of the components in N900 doesn't 'work' out of the box? (Except for IR port, which just needs a package install).
Just check what features are advertised in the marketing materials (ads, product packaging, etc), and if what you want to do isn't listed there then it's safe to assume that it's not supported out of the box. Then you're free to choose any other products that may suit your needs better.
But I don't see the point to badger\whine\threaten about something that they haven't ever promised to do just because you assumed they would.
Access to the hardware concerns cannot be thrown away this simply...
It really sounds like this is now also bordering on the same type of discussion that can be found defective by design (http://defectivebydesign.org).
And we don't want Nokia to become the next Tivo!
We actually value a lot what they are doing with the FOSS community and that is why a lot of people are arguing in that direction and actually got here in the first place...
Some people also believe you own the hardware you buy and think this is part of a set of basic rights about access to information/knowledge that are going to be needed in the very near future.
As communication and information are going to be more and more mediated by electronic media/support, it's going to become the main exchange hub used from democratic discussion to commerce.
So no, you're not just going to go "shop elsewhere" as this is a much more important issue to many than having a trendy electronic item...
Texrat
10-04-2009, 11:30 PM
I don't have any problem with people making strong cases to Nokia for opening the devices up more. As has already been noted, progress HAS been made on that front. But some of the posts take an "all or nothing tack" and sorry, that's going to meet with resistance.
Nokia is trying to make money off a commercial product while opening as much as they see fit to outside, open source development. There are other platforms out there with differing degrees of this approach or, alternatively, some form of closed system. Pick the platform that best suits your ideology, wants and needs.
If you like the Maemo concept enough to post passionately here in favor of it opening further, again, make a good case for it but omit the bashing. People will listen. Flavor your proposals with negativity and abject criticism... and they won't so much.
Texrat
10-04-2009, 11:32 PM
Some people also believe you own the hardware you buy and think this is part of a set of basic rights about access to information/knowledge that are going to be needed in the very near future.
But they don't own the intellectual property behind that hardware. Is that the actual crux of the complaint here?
But they don't own the intellectual property behind that hardware. Is that the actual crux of the complaint here?
That's probably one part of the problem, yes!
If they cannot distribute free drivers because some other company doesn't allow it, well, then I'm guessing people are trying to pressure Nokia to put pressure on that other company.
And generally, they are putting pressure on the system to make laws to protect these rights and forbid the locking down of hardware away from those who buy them.
This debate has gotten very long and they are many many facets to it but I think we're doing not too bad in addressing this important issues that seems quite important to many (we're getting to 300 posts after all...).
Well, at least I now understand more and think that Nokia will be stirring the big ship in th right direction in the future...
(Now can we get those N900 shipped? :))
@Andre Klapper:
We can't use commercial models created for proprietary software with Free (as free speach) Software.
When doing and/or distributes Free (as free speach) Software, must conceive things differently.
Currently, Nokia distributes Maemo, OS containing a large number of Free (as free speach) Software, as a proprietary OS.
It's not a good sollution.
Sorry but you are objectively wrong here. Developers are free to decide the licenses for their software. Maemo integrates a stack of software mostly LGPL friendly, which indeed allows you to combine software freedom, integration of proprietary software and commercial distribution. Nokia is not forcing anybody to choose such licenses and actually many of these components existed before licensed that way.
If you are author of a piece of software integrated in Maemo and you disagree in the way Nokia is using your software you could find a license according to your wishes exactly. The fact is that, in general, developers of those components are overall happy about companies like Nokia using their components and contributing to their development.
If you are not a developer of those components then you have really a little ground to tell to anybody how to use a piece of software if it's being used in the licensed terms.
Now, if someone wants to bring this long thread somewhere useful please come up with specific use cases explaining what would you like to do but you can't because software component X is closed.
Be specific, be convincing finding harmony between your interests and the interests of whoever has the copyrights of the closed software you want to open and you will see.
GeneralAntilles
10-05-2009, 01:16 AM
That's probably one part of the problem, yes!
If they cannot distribute free drivers because some other company doesn't allow it, well, then I'm guessing people are trying to pressure Nokia to put pressure on that other company.
What makes you think Nokia isn't putting pressure on those other companies? STMicro released the STLC45x specifications directly because of Nokia pressure, and I suspect Nokia is one of the biggest drivers (if not the biggest) behind TI's recent open source moves.
ruskie
10-05-2009, 02:02 AM
Commercial distribution is never an issue with Free Software as long as you follow the license you are free to sell products using them. Of course you can't just sell the raw software but you can sell a service to code it up(spread over multiple sales) or devices that run it.
Anyway I'm a strong believer of the Free Software ideology(and yes as any religion or other ideology there are things that are dogmatic to it). But I myslef draw the line at firmware usually. Firmware is only the stuff that would be baked into the ROM if companies weren't using EEPROMs(not that sometimes I wish they were using plain ROM and actually get the hardware 100% working BEFORE throwing it out to the market).
I do believe drivers should all be Free(commercially and intellectually) though I could accept firmware blobs. The reason for this is so that a user is free to update to whatever kernel they may wish as long as the driver can be recompiled for it. Thus it could use the same firmware just an updated driver in-between.
I believe that the core functionality stack should be Free Software as well. This means the middle layer with the access, apis etc. So yes lower level(kernel space), middle layer(userspace with the core functionality stack, UI toolkit(s)) should both be Free Software. For the highest layer the stuff that users see I would prefer to have it Free Software but since that could, if both lower layers are Free, be easily replaced I would have less of a problem.
I can respect companies trying to make a buck, I can respect them having trade secrets that they wish to keep closed, I can't accept having user freedom lacking due to that though.
Whatever happened to the old old adage: The customer is always right?
As for radios, 3d acceleration, location services, battery charging from some other post.
Radios should be locked down in the firmware not software. This is the simple idea that it'll be harder to bypass a firmware restriction than a software one(yes reverse engineering can happen)(even though both are technicall software).
3D acceleration - there is absolutely no sane reason for this to be locked down. Atleast the core GLES functionality should be accelerated and Free. Any additional out of spec accelerations could be written based on specs.
Location services - I can respect they are investing heavily into this, and want to keep it closed, but this should be replaceable in such a way that another component could be used. What if I want to use Google's location services integrated into the system? Or my own even? The API atleast should be made available for this so that others can replace that component.
Battery charging - or let's say power management, they consider this to be a distinguishing feature. Why not provide an open core for charging and basic power management Freely then build on top what they consider as distinguishing features? That way if someone doesn't wish to run that particular piece of software they would simply loose the benefit of their distinguishing features. But could have their own.
Well this is started to turn into rambling. /me goes away for a while
My contention was with the theory that Chinese knockoffs will be good for Nokia.
I wouldn't use the word "knockoffs" to describe them, but there are many intriguing Chinese (and not only) devices mentioned in the Competitors forum already. Since Nokia support Mer (which is already running on several of those) they probably don't think of it as such a big problem anyway.
Given that actual competing devices exist and will keep coming, does it make much difference whether they run some variant of Maemo, Moblin, Ubuntu MID etc?
Wait, does any of the components in N900 doesn't 'work' out of the box? (Except for IR port, which just needs a package install).
Some assembly will be required to get things like USB host, FM receiver, several bluetooth profiles, wired headset buttons etc working (some of these may even not work at all, but it's too early to tell right now).
It's unfortunate that most posts against non-GPL-ed codes in this thread does not address the vendor's interest that they sound like it's coming from self-interested parties that makes use of flawed understanding of GPL\open source for their own benefit.
IMHO, you need to understand more about what's involved in producing the components in question (yes, hardware and software) to make good cases about/against them.
ps: no, I'm afraid "I understand that someone needs to make a buck" isn't sufficient to reflect your understanding of the matter. These companies are not charities that churns out hardware to support certain ideals, so let's just accept that reality and base the discussion around that.
korbé
10-05-2009, 08:17 AM
Sorry but you are objectively wrong here. Developers are free to decide the licenses for their software. Maemo integrates a stack of software mostly LGPL friendly, which indeed allows you to combine software freedom, integration of proprietary software and commercial distribution. Nokia is not forcing anybody to choose such licenses and actually many of these components existed before licensed that way.
Do not have valid cons-arguments do not allow you to distort the meaning of my words.
It is strange than you talk now than my good examples are lost among (almost) 300 posts in this tread.
And I don't know if I'll go search these, if this is to be ignored or see the meaning of my words change by people who have no valid cons-arguments.
PS: 'Cons-arguments' is the correct translation from the French word 'contre-arguments' ?
zerojay
10-05-2009, 08:38 AM
Do not have valid cons-arguments do not allow you to distort the meaning of my words.
It is strange than you talk now than my good examples are lost among (almost) 300 posts in this tread.
And I don't know if I'll go search these, if this is to be ignored or see the meaning of my words change by people who have no valid cons-arguments.
PS: 'Cons-arguments' is the correct translation from the French word 'contre-arguments' ?
Counter arguments or rebuttals.
Looks like Quim's been layin' the smackdown since I checked out this thread last, lol.
Andre Klapper
10-05-2009, 08:54 AM
It is strange than you talk now than my good examples are lost among (almost) 300 posts in this tread.
I don't think that "Please come up with exact, specific requests why some specific package should become opened" is hard to understand. Please do, as I have already explained Nokia is more than willing to open components if there are good reasons provided.
And no, I did not read every single posting in this thread either, because I sometimes simply have to work. ;-)
Texrat
10-05-2009, 09:24 AM
I wouldn't use the word "knockoffs" to describe them, but there are many intriguing Chinese (and not only) devices mentioned in the Competitors forum already. Since Nokia support Mer (which is already running on several of those) they probably don't think of it as such a big problem anyway.
Given that actual competing devices exist and will keep coming, does it make much difference whether they run some variant of Maemo, Moblin, Ubuntu MID etc?
That's getting afield of the original point to which I responded. It's easier to agree when the argument is watered down. ;)
johnkzin
10-05-2009, 09:38 AM
It is strange than you talk now than my good examples are lost among (almost) 300 posts in this tread.
I don't recall you posting any good examples. Lots of bad examples, but not any good ones.
None the less, he's given you an invitation to post concrete cases. Rather than posturing, why not respond to that?
None the less, he's given you an invitation to post concrete cases. Rather than posturing, why not respond to that?I've started a new thread to do just that for Diablo
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=32448
joenix
10-05-2009, 05:33 PM
Concrete examples have been asked for, these are a few I can think of. Most of them are quite unlikely to change any time soon, but they are real problems none the less. If some would call me a zealot for being annoyed by some of these issues, so be it, I do not see myself as one. In fact I very much appreciate what Nokia is doing. The N900 looks like a big step in the right direction.
Component: (closed parts of the) Maemo SDK (liblocation, libcityinfo)
Reason: Developers are free to make open source software that relies on these libraries, but if Nokia decides no longer to support them or not to compile them for new devices, your program won't run on them.
Component: hardware support: (fmtx-middleware, location-daemon, libbmeipc0, libgles1)
Reason(s): First, Linux is not the only open source OS out there. Some people may want to run something else on the hardware they paid for. Without open drivers or open specs, this is impossible to do without losing functionality.
Second, the closed source software may not have all the functionality you would like. For example, right now there is a discussion (http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2009-October/056152.html) on the Openmoko community list about improving GPS accuracy with EGNOS (http://www.esa.int/esaNA/SEM2HGF280G_egnos_0.html). I'm not sure how well this will work out, but at least it's possible with open source. Another example would be the RX part of the FM system.
Component: Adobe Flash player
Reason: If Adobe Flash would be open source (I know, I know,...), we wouldn't have to wait until Adobe decides to compile the new version of Flash for Maemo. Compare that to the open HTML standard. As soon as Firefox has support for the latest improvements, you are free to take the source and compile it for your platform.
allnameswereout
10-06-2009, 02:00 PM
If I buy the hardware, I have a right to use it. Nokia denies me those rights with the N810's GPS and battery charger. Providing me a broken (or even working) proprietary blob that can use the hardware is not equivalent to giving me the information required to use it myself.How can you compare what Nokia does (providing proprietary driver instead of open source driver) with what TiVo and Apple do (using DRM to not allow your own software & hardware).
If you want to use your own external GPS on your Nokia N8x0, you can do so, but on your Apple iPod touch you cannot because its locked down and the Bluetooth profiles are crippled (only supporting AD2P) or the hardware isn't even supported by driver (iPhoneOS 2.x). You can add your own Bluetooth profiles on Nokia N8x0 and Nokia N900. You can write your own driver for GPS. You cannot do that on a jailed device.
While I agree 100% open source drivers is ideal it isn't always viable. Like I said, even Openmoko folks had to opt for hardware without open source driver purely because the hardware was the best and there was no 'open' alternative. These folks are hard core open source freaks yet had to opt for proprietary. Isn't that telling? And, their other issue was lack of stability.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.