Active Topics
-
Porting apps to Leste (32)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 1 day, 1 hr ago -
[ANNOUNCE] CSSU-thumb thread - stable Thumb2 on N900 (2,264)
to Maemo 5 / Fremantle by panjgoori - 2 days, 19 hrs ago -
Full linux distros on Sailfish OS (254)
to SailfishOS by qoh - 3 days, 18 hrs ago - more...
Luke-Jr |
2009-10-04
, 19:29
|
|
Posts: 53 |
Thanked: 40 times |
Joined on May 2009
@ Brooksville, Florida
|
#231
|
Originally Posted by R-R
No. Regulations change, and vary by region. Such limitations must clearly only be in software. However, that is not a valid excuse to keep the source hidden. Modifying the source is not "tuning" a radio any more than hex editing a binary blob is. If it is illegal to distribute the source that could be hacked, it is also illegal to distribute a blob that could be hacked. The only advantage someone has with source is that they're less likely to do damage *accidentally*. Someone who intentionally wants to violate the regulations won't be stopped.
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Luke-Jr For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-10-04
, 20:02
|
|
Posts: 1,665 |
Thanked: 1,649 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ Praha, Czech Republic
|
#232
|
Originally Posted by korbé
Exclusivity can be kept for a longer time when not sharing your code.
Keep exclusivity software: this is not required to sell a great many unit. I'll add that the N900 is an exclusivity to himself: there is not exist a mobile PC equivalent today.
Originally Posted by korbé
Your elaborations are unrelated... Nokia works together with a variety of other companies - in software and hardware. It's often not Nokia only who can decide here. And even if some partial decisions are in Nokia's hands only, it still takes a while for lawyers to check code and potential issues before making it public. If you are a lawyer who's specialized in international law and covers several countries you will know.
IPR & licensing issues: The risk of having patents on technologies include in Maemo 5 is the same for present proprietary elements than for elements already FOSS. For example: The kernel Linux may also contain elements protected by patents or licenses unauthorized. In addition, SCO seems saved to the bankrupt, so they could try attack Nokia for using the Linux kernel. Yet Nokia uses the Linux kernel in Maemo 5.
In general there are different concepts for everything - open source vs commercial software, capitalistic democracy vs communism, mixtures of them (e.g. freeware).
It's the right and freedom of every company and individual to choose what they think is right for them.
I hope you agree with this.
In general "Open everything now!" talk is easy if you're not in a position that makes you responsible for the jobs of thousands of people if your company suddenly goes bankrupt because you gave away all your competitive advantage.
And still, Maemo5/Fremantle DOES have way more open source components than Maemo4/Diablo had. Nokia is on the right way, though it could sometimes really be a bit faster, but I guess that's normal with bigger companies.
"All opinions in this post are my personal opinions only, blah..." :-P
__________________
maemo.org Bugmaster
maemo.org Bugmaster
|
|
2009-10-04
, 20:30
|
|
Posts: 206 |
Thanked: 72 times |
Joined on Jun 2009
@ Switzerland
|
#233
|
@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.
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.
|
|
2009-10-04
, 20:45
|
|
Posts: 3,319 |
Thanked: 5,610 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Finland
|
#234
|
Originally Posted by korbé
Good or not, it is the best solution available as of yet.
It's not a good sollution.
|
|
2009-10-04
, 20:51
|
|
Posts: 206 |
Thanked: 72 times |
Joined on Jun 2009
@ Switzerland
|
#235
|
Originally Posted by attila77
No, and I've proven several times.
Good or not, it is the best solution available as of yet.
Than it like or not to Fanboys
|
|
2009-10-04
, 20:55
|
|
Posts: 1,665 |
Thanked: 1,649 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ Praha, Czech Republic
|
#236
|
Originally Posted by korbé
I can. So I hope your "We" does not also include me.
@Andre Klapper:
We can't use commercial models created for proprietary software with Free (as free speach) Software.
__________________
maemo.org Bugmaster
maemo.org Bugmaster
 |
|
2009-10-04
, 20:56
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#237
|
Originally Posted by korbé
There's a difference between objective evidence and emphatic opinion.
No, and I've proven several times.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
| The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-10-04
, 20:57
|
|
Posts: 1,513 |
Thanked: 2,248 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ US
|
#238
|
Originally Posted by Andre Klapper
In general, this is correct and understandable. But for software that is EOL, maybe not so clear. There's a difference between keeping EOL software locked in a room so that no one can use it, and letting others use it at their own risk. And an even bigger difference when the software is developed with the assistance of a community that deserves to at least be in the room.
Exclusivity can be kept for a longer time when not sharing your code.
Your elaborations are unrelated... Nokia works together with a variety of other companies - in software and hardware. It's often not Nokia only who can decide here. And even if some partial decisions are in Nokia's hands only, it still takes a while for lawyers to check code and potential issues before making it public. If you are a lawyer who's specialized in international law and covers several countries you will know.
In general there are different concepts for everything - open source vs commercial software, capitalistic democracy vs communism, mixtures of them (e.g. freeware).
It's the right and freedom of every company and individual to choose what they think is right for them.
I hope you agree with this.
This is not just my comment:
https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3845#c11
| The Following User Says Thank You to SD69 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-10-04
, 21:00
|
|
Posts: 206 |
Thanked: 72 times |
Joined on Jun 2009
@ Switzerland
|
#239
|
Originally Posted by Andre Klapper
Free software and proprietary software do not make the same ways, it don't distribute the same manner and, therefore, it is not profitable in the same way.
I can. So I hope your "We" does not also include me.
It's simple.
The use of 'WE' is owed to a bad translation from French into English. Excuse me.
|
|
2009-10-04
, 21:06
|
|
Posts: 1,665 |
Thanked: 1,649 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ Praha, Czech Republic
|
#240
|
Originally Posted by korbé
In that point I totally agree. However both can learn from each other. It's not that closed source is always something evil.
Free software and proprietary software do not make the same ways, it don't distribute the same manner and, therefore, it is not profitable in the same way.
Originally Posted by korbé
:-) Not a problem.
The use of 'WE' is owed to a bad translation from French into English.
__________________
maemo.org Bugmaster
maemo.org Bugmaster
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:49.