Re: [Council] State of Maemo, Q32010.2
 

The bottom line is most likely that someone needs to ask. If you have an area that you would commit to supporting and maintaining, Nokia may consider opening the code. Of course, the caveat is that the code you ask for may be proprietary and/or not necessarily pertinent to open in regards to everything that Maemo "does."

But, stating a case and providing a legitimate means for maintaining the code is the first step.

Tim

Re: [Council] State of Maemo, Q32010.2
 

My impression was that everything of substance has already been asked for and turned down by Nokia, as recorded in the relevant bugzilla entries. Is this a new message that they're willing to revisit requests that they rejected earlier? Or just a reiteration that in principle, they're willing to open components, even though nothing new is actually going to come up?

And why do these requests have to come from the community, anyway? Why can't Nokia come out with an enumeration of every closed component and say whether they'd be willing to open it? And at that point, maybe some community members would be interested in volunteering to maintain some of those. The cost to a community member to even write up a request is rather high, and the presumption should be that Nokia wants to do the right, open thing anyway.

Re: [Council] State of Maemo, Q32010.2
 

Exactly, I thought the licensing change requests queue was essentially dead after this, and even some things that seemed to have been agreed in principle are stuck in limbo.

Has Nokia communicated that this is changing in any way?

Re: [Council] State of Maemo, Q32010.2
 

This is very much like what was said a year or so ago and addressed by myself and others then. Is there really any reason to think it will be different this time around?

I realize its a difficult position being on council, and I appreciate the selfless service, but I want to point out that on this end it seems as though sometimes what Nokia says is just repeated without any retrospection, value add, or adjustment for the perspective that maemo.org should be managed for the benefit of community members. Hard is it may be to do in a complicated environment, sometimes value lies in having the insight to lead the community towards solutions that will work and away from dead ends. The licensing change requests queue from a year ago seems to have been a dead end.

Re: [Council] State of Maemo, Q32010.2
 

don't get your hopes up. They've been promising to "open pieces of maemo" since the n770 days. once a particular package hits end-of-life, there's about a 10% chance on average they'll release source code.

nokia is apparently convinced something as unique and crucial as a crippled calendar application or a slow, featureless media player is somehow valuable to the corporation and has to be kept under lock and key.

Re: [Council] State of Maemo, Q32010.2
 

Well, let's hold them to their word:

1. Find a package
2. Find someone who could realistically maintain it
3. Put together a business case.

The Council would be happy to help with any of the above. We will also then push Nokia for an official response - of course, it might be "no", but that should be accompanied by an explanation.

However, I can understand why Nokia isn't going to do the work (checking licensing, looking for commercially sensitive information in the source) unless all three criteria are met.

Re: [Council] State of Maemo, Q32010.2
 

Wait, why do we have to come up with new ones when there are several requests still pending? Many of them are not objected to in principle, but there's no one looking at them. I mean, even something like a simple shell script that is a no-brainer has been stalled for over 3 months due to (presumably) lack of resources.

I'll ask again: has anything changed since the last word from Nokia on the subject I linked to in the previous post?

Re: [Council] State of Maemo, Q32010.2
 

Some of the business case and maintainerships in there are a little vague; a "well, it'd be nice" and "Diablo SSU would benefit" (without saying how, or what it'd enable).

Nokia have said it again. How have you escalated your currently stalled requests?

Re: [Council] State of Maemo, Q32010.2
 

If any more info is needed just ask, that's what a bugtracker is for!

That's nice. So there is someone assigned to looking at licencing change requests again?

I didn't realise we had to, or even how to escalate if bugs.maemo.org isn't the right channel any more.

FWIW the instructions state:

not "if there's no response take it to channel foo" or "keep bugging us until we respond" etc.

Re: [Council] State of Maemo, Q32010.2
 

I don't know what detail is needed, but I'd've thought that a more compelling proposal would be easier to get approved.

AFAIK, the process is the same, but...

...if someone doesn't respond in a timely manner, bugging them/the Council/Quim seems more appropriate than saying "well, I filed it, nothing happened, therefore Nokia is purposefully saying one thing and not doing another". Don't ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence, forgetfulness or over-work.

If after some bugging there's a response of "please wait" or no response at all, complaining would be appropriate and not taking Nokia's future assurances at their word.