Active Topics

 



Notices


Reply
Thread Tools
qgil's Avatar
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,078 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#11
I don't understand the surprise with the Media Player. It has been closed source since the first day of Maemo. In Fremantle the engine is oss generic (MAFW) and the player UI is closed, so there has been opening progress.

I will convert https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1235 in a brainstorm proposal so we can see the potential and preferred solutions.

Now, please move the topic back to portrait mode.
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post:
Posts: 1,097 | Thanked: 650 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#12
While I understand that Maemo OS is billed as open source that may not mean that all other components and apps on top of Maemo will also be open sourced.

So the Music player not being open sourced is highly likely and does not conflict with the fact that Maemo is open sourced.

If I develop an application for Maemo, I can close it down and not have it to be totally open. The Music player just happens to be integrated and built in. It need not be also open as the OS underneath.

Google has built up its infrastructure and its search universe on open source too, but that doesn't mean Google's code is all open sourced. No way.
 
Posts: 206 | Thanked: 72 times | Joined on Jun 2009 @ Switzerland
#13
@Ragnar
And now, yet this principle of **** that is that of "Open Source but not Free (af free Speech)"

And freedom of the user? And equality of users?

"Useless, they are only there to pay and be subject to the richest ..."

Grrrrrr.
 
Posts: 631 | Thanked: 1,123 times | Joined on Sep 2005 @ Helsinki
#14
As my personal opinion, Maemo is not some ideological struggle. We don't open source because of ideology but because of the pragmatic thought of it being the best method for us to make compelling experiences and products for our customers. That's how things should be, as far as I see. Open source is utilized because it is good, not because it is some holy crusade. For me that is the far more interesting angle in Maemo and open source: balancing openness with interests of a multinational corporation. Sticking to absolutes is easy but easily gets you nowhere, making compromises is hard but it can get you somewhere. Making something where everybody, including Nokia, wins.

Last edited by sjgadsby; 2009-09-22 at 14:41. Reason: splitting comment as part of move of posts to new thread
 

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ragnar For This Useful Post:
qgil's Avatar
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,078 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#15
(someone please spin off this oss discussion since it is interesting but I don't feel like keeping it as OT)

korbe, releasing distributions that are completely free is good and accomplishes an important role in the free software community. However, in order to distribute free software someone has to develop it and contribute it.

From this point of view have no doubt that Nokia is one of the main contributors to the free desktop, and Maemo has played a big role on this. Ubuntu and others benefit from these contributions, just like Nokia benefits fom the work contributed by others. Measuring the "free software value" of Maemo based only on the percentage of open source code in the official releases misses a big and very important part of the picture.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post:
Posts: 206 | Thanked: 72 times | Joined on Jun 2009 @ Switzerland
#16
Originally Posted by ragnar View Post
the non-topic part:
As my personal opinion, Maemo is not some ideological struggle. We don't open source because of ideology but because of the pragmatic thought of it being the best method for us to make compelling experiences and products for our customers. That's how things should be, as far as I see. Open source is utilized because it is good, not because it is some holy crusade. For me that is the far more interesting angle in Maemo and open source: balancing openness with interests of a multinational corporation. Sticking to absolutes is easy but easily gets you nowhere, making compromises is hard but it can get you somewhere. Making something where everybody, including Nokia, wins.
And democracy is a utopia also?

No, it's a necessity. Like Free Software, especially if it is related directly to our private life or private data.

In addition, Nokia has absolutely nothing to lose by doing 100% Free Software.

Except to keeping the user in a form of submission unhealthy oxploiting > exploited, or to hide things unmentionable, I see no reason to make proprietary software.

@ qgil : Yes, but I can not trust in a software whose operation is hidden.

Last edited by korbé; 2009-09-22 at 14:37.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to korbé For This Useful Post:
Posts: 2,802 | Thanked: 4,489 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#17
Originally Posted by ragnar View Post
Nokia is not saying that the operating system is "Free".
True.

Originally Posted by ragnar View Post
Open source does not equal "Free", and open source does not also mean 100% open code.
It does actually:

Originally Posted by The Open Source Definition
2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
 
Posts: 631 | Thanked: 1,123 times | Joined on Sep 2005 @ Helsinki
#18
Originally Posted by korbé View Post
In addition, Nokia has absolutely nothing to lose by doing 100% Free Software.
I thought I already touched on that. Quoting my previous answer,

"but naturally there is interest for Nokia so that we don't spend Much Time and Effort in creating something that then some company from Asia could just create a slightly cheaper device, put the same piece of software there (the "100% FOSS Maemo") and make a profit."
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ragnar For This Useful Post:
Posts: 631 | Thanked: 1,123 times | Joined on Sep 2005 @ Helsinki
#19
Originally Posted by lma View Post
Me: "Nokia is not saying that the operating system is "Free". Open source does not equal "Free", and open source does not also mean 100% open code."

It does actually:
Ok, you are right. Sorry about my definitions of words. They weren't really good. I was trying to say that "an open source operating system does not also mean 100% open code". I am not trying to redefine the meaning of open source.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ragnar For This Useful Post:
qgil's Avatar
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,078 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#20
Originally Posted by korbé View Post
In addition, Nokia has absolutely nothing to lose by doing 100% Free Software.
Interesting. Do you have a business plan backing this assertion?

@ qgil : Yes, but I can not trust in a software whose operation is hidden.
Fair enough, but Maemo and Nokia have been very clear since the begining saying that full open source is not the goal. It's your sudden surprise what is surprising.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
balance, basic rights, defective by design, get your stink on, gpl holy crusade, open source, open source advocacy, sw wants to be free, try to correct an error, why isn't the gpl law?!, zealots be here

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:27.