att | # 251 | 2013-11-28, 12:32 | Report

There is only SSH remote password option on developer mode panel. I already tried it with generate password button and devel-su didn't work with that generated password. Now I tried the option with inputting very easy password and saving it. With that devel-su actually worked. So either there is bug or the terminal's virtual keyboard caused problems with inputting complex passwords (very difficult because echo is off).

Back to original: The error message is "zypper: command not found", so it seems that zypper is not available on Jolla. It seems that terminal was somehow messing with the lines because earlier it seemed that the error message was "zypper: command not foundd permission not allowed" but it probably was combination of multiple lines (the double d).

Sorry about the confusion.

SourenAraya | # 252 | 2013-11-28, 13:32 | Report

@att yep. There is no zypper by default... I didnt know about that.
You can install zypper by

javispedro | # 253 | 2013-11-28, 17:14 | Report

Has anyone considered the legality of all this?

Among other things it violates the SDK license. I don't have the device at hand but I presume it violates its software license too.

flotron | # 254 | 2013-11-28, 17:17 | Report

I don't really know how licenses are but, we are not selling nothing

ggabriel | # 255 | 2013-11-28, 17:18 | Report

I always thought that so long as you don't commercialise it, you can do whatever you want. You can download the firmware of your CD player, alter it, upload it again at your own risk. If it's within the privacy of your home, it is all good.

Now, in this thread the discussion is hypothetical, as you know, so nobody is actually doing anything :-)

w00t | # 256 | 2013-11-28, 17:32 | Report

What is violating which license in particular, in your opinion?

(Maybe we need to revisit some things...)

javispedro | # 257 | 2013-11-28, 22:47 | Report

The problem is that the SailfishOS.license is basically indistinguishable from a standard EULA. Among other things, it paraphrases the usual "Purpose" clause that is present on many other EULAs and for example the EULA for the Maemo SDK:
With this in place, it is not safe to actually copy any non-OSS package from the emulator VM and put it into non-SailfishOS sanctioned device.

One might argue that Jolla will never sue individuals hacking this this way, but:
a) This is unfair versus projects that use actual OSS licenses,
b) Jolla today is a different entity from the Jolla of tomorrow, which could go berserk, be bought by Oracle, or for any other reason decide to start sueing everyone.

Please correct if wrong.

maluka | # 258 | 2013-11-28, 23:11 | Report

Jolla's CEO and top brass have said in countless interviews over the last few days that they encourage people to install Sailfish on their non-Jolla devices. They have also in the past month retweeted a picture of the first N9 to run the SDK build and tried to explain to people that are not offering official Jolla support for the N9. Why is it so hard for people to get over this?

I think the beef comes from a lot of people who expect Jolla to simply roll out an installable build for the N9. Jolla is not Nokia. Jolla didn't sell you the N9 and they don't owe you anything. It's hard enough for them to put out 1 device of their own.

https://twitter.com/JollaHQ/status/403456905743327232
https://twitter.com/JollaHQ/status/403160585174409218
https://twitter.com/JollaHQ/status/405639730282242048

flotron | # 259 | 2013-11-29, 03:01 | Report

Ok, Jolla encourages the port, lets move on

DJJonosound | # 260 | 2013-11-30, 09:12 | Report

Read back a bit.. others are trying to help the user who has the jolla get the dump :P