Texrat | # 21 | 2010-06-10, 15:37 | Report

Very well put Jaffa.

SpeedEvil | # 22 | 2010-06-12, 10:52 | Report

What would be needed to be perfectly fine legally would be to take the chrome repository, and fork it.

This fork would need to have none of the source-code of courgette - that would need totally ripped out of any revision history that was kept.

Then build a binary from that.

You will certainly win any court case that ensues, if competently represented.

However, that does not mean that you, or if it's a Nokia repository, Nokia, won't face time in court - for which you may not get your costs back.

---

Last edited by SpeedEvil; 2010-06-12 at 11:20. Reason: add lawyer

SD69 | # 23 | 2010-06-13, 16:15 | Report

Perhaps this is an opportunity to consider the benefits of having maemo.org governance be more independent. It would be to Nokia's benefit because they would not be liable for the actions of maemo.org. It would be to our benefit because we could make our own decisions.

I think such proposal has been invited in the past:

http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=166

and this Chromium issue may raise the interest of Nokia in accomplishing the transition at the present time.

Jaffa | # 24 | 2010-06-13, 16:58 | Report

As I said, it's already raised this and discussions have started:

http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...1&postcount=20

The process here was very open and collaborative with the council. Obviously, I wasn't on the council during the Nintendo affair, but I get the impression Nokia have learnt how to improve their collaboration with the community in these circumstances.

Indeed, if anyone was lacking, it was the council in responding in a timely manner: if we can't act professionally on these very important issues (certainly important to Nokia), we lose credibility.

Whoever is running the show, ultimately someone - and very possibly an individual - is going to get a C&D letter like the one Nokia got. Unless we built up a large legal fund (or had lawyers willing to work pro bono) the result on this Chromium decision would've been the same: remove the package as an act of good faith whilst you try to have a dialogue to reach an amicable settlement.

SD69 | # 25 | 2010-06-13, 17:24 | Report

Yes, I read that post. It suggested everything was being discussed and governance was being revisited and , but wasn't specific and I am specifically proposing the legal entity that qgil suggested.


If for example a non-profit foundation is formed, then it would insulate individuals from liability as well as Nokia. Not to say that the C&D letter won't be received, but the situation changes radically in that instance. If Nokia is clearly out of the picture, then they don't have much incentive to threaten a non-profit foundation. While the decision not to offer a piece of software may be the same in a particular instance, there is more latitude.

Also, there are benefits to such a structure in other circumstances which is why Linux Foundation exists, etc., to support the software rather than make profits.

Jaffa | # 26 | 2010-06-13, 17:26 | Report

Indeed, good points.

D4rKlar | # 27 | 2010-06-16, 07:57 | Report

Quick question, I've got this package for an old app that has been discontinued, how hard is it to make a .deb file out of a .tar.gz?

rich c | # 28 | 2010-06-16, 08:43 | Report

This might be a place to start...

ZogG | # 29 | 2010-06-16, 09:02 | Report

WTF? there is chrome and chromium, and second is freeware and is under opensource licence for linux, and is maemo one of the linux distros - what's the problem?

inoshishi | # 30 | 2010-06-16, 09:20 | Report

OpenSource does not mean that it does not infringe a patent.

But if the patent can hold in court, this is only for US citizens. Nokia should do what Debian did. Have a US repository and a non-US repository. The US would be limited in content by their patent laws, the non-US would not obey non-US laws. I don't see why a lawsuit in the US should prevent everyone in the world to use Chromium.