I found this blog comparing freedom of Android and Maemo:
http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/03/04/mobile.html

Mr. Kuhn seems to be an advocate for free software and he seems to think that Android/Linux is definitely the mobile platform for the free software community.

I found this interesting because I was thinking that GNU/Linux based platform like Maemo/MeeGo would be the preferred one.

Interesting article. I wonder what Mer developers think about it.

I was also under the impression that Maemo was more "open" than Android and, as such, the first choice for FOSS advocates.

While I do agree with most of his opinions, he's under the impression Mer was 100% open source in all cases on all hardware. The common platform in Mer shared amongst all devices is open source (Like MeeGo), hardware adaptation in kernel should be open source (Like MeeGo), hardware adaptation in userspace may be closed source but should ideally be open source (Like MeeGo), differentiation by vendors may be closed but ought to be redistributable for the target device (not entirely like MeeGo yet). For this reason I recommend people interested in Mer from the open source platform point of view, to contribute to MeeGo.

As I said in a mail at some point on MeeGo-dev (http://lists.meego.com/pipermail/mee.../000986.html):

I personally believe that it is better to hold hands with a hardware vendor and show them the strength of a open source community and helpthem towards workable solutions and open source, than to adapt the stance that it's fully open source or no way.

I think an attitude of 'reaching, understanding and working towards open source solutions in the long term' is better than a confrontational attitude of 'open source or nothing, now' at making
good citizens of hardware vendors in the open source community.

I do agree that confrontational attitude will lead the open source community nowhere. On the other hand I also believe you put way too much of the burden on the open source community. The community has been showing the strength of FOSS to Nokia for a few years now. Unfortunately a single fact remains their hardware remain closed. What will happen with MeeGo remain to be seen ...

I invite you to have a look at : http://www.nokia.com/NOKIA_COM_1/Tec...hite_paper.pdf (Page 4, Figure 4).

Open source : UI, Development Frameworks and platform (MeeGo)
Closed source : Apps, Services and Hardware

(Perhaps I read too much into that ?)

As a customer, I will always choose the most open "phone". It is not my duty to sell a device to myself. It is up to Nokia to show me what they can/can't do and after that I make my choice. I may or may not buy the MeeGo phone from Nokia depending on its openness. I don't see what is wrong with that.

For what it worth, I am following the discussion on "[Meego-community] [MeeGo-dev] Proposal: A vendor social contract". I am also prepare to take an active role in the UX working group. After what I said it might look like I am contradicting myself but I enjoy being wrong because it means I learned something. (To be proven wrong and learn one must be around if it happen)

Possibly - it may just mean that they're not making available the transistor layouts for the various chips, the trace layouts for the circuit boards, etc.