On the massive success of the Nokia Innovators contest at bringing us quality N900 software - Page 12 - maemo.org

ysss | # 111 | 2010-10-23, 11:38 | Report

I smell incredible amount of bias... resulting in an incredible amount of leniency toward the un-open natures exhibited by Nokia/Fabien.

Or should this be the normal level of tolerance we should show toward each other and our topics of choice? That would be nice too.

The Following User Says Thank You to ysss For This Useful Post:
danramos

Master of Gizmo | # 112 | 2010-10-23, 19:27 | Report

Originally Posted by richwhite View Post

A lot of us donate to them for their efforts and as it's a donation, we voluntarily do so and don't complain about it. I think the Maemo community is, by and large, very rewarding and full of generous people.

I don't know of a single Maemo developer (incl myself) who got more than around a hundred bucks donated in total for maemo apps.

Don't get me wrong, i don't do this for donations and i never expected to get a significant amount of them. But fact is: The donations you receive for over 100.000 downloads doesn't allow you to pay a single romantic dinner with your wife.

So don't tell anyone wanting to sell his app to go for donations instead. There basically are no donations in the maemo world. I received far more and bigger donations for my other far less popular projects.

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Master of Gizmo For This Useful Post:
fnordianslip, javispedro, mmlado, ossipena, Wikiwide, ysss

attila77 | # 113 | 2010-10-24, 10:15 | Report

As weird as it may sound, the issue is deeper than 'just' licensing. It puts maemo.org Extras on collision course with Ovi (I can't emphasize how bad that is), and risk bad blood between Fabien/Stellarium project and the maemo/stellarium communities (which, reading back the thread has already happened to an extent). The 25.000$ donation/prize from Nokia is not helping clarify the issue, either.

Last edited by attila77; 2010-10-24 at 10:22.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to attila77 For This Useful Post:
danramos, Jaffa, javispedro, mmlado

benny1967 | # 114 | 2010-10-24, 11:06 | Report

Originally Posted by Matan View Post

The GPL did not require providing source to any third party, last time you read it? Really? Did you actually read it? Did you manage to get as far as paragraph 3b, quoted just a few posts upthread?

I can only repeat myself, but I'm not sure if it's useful: The GPL could require that you stand on your head on times square and read the source code aloud while you eat cheeseburgers: it does not matter. none of the passers-by (in case you actually are on times square...) could request that you do it. There's no treaty between you and those people that would give them any right to ask that of you.

The person who could force you to stand on your head, eat the burger and read the source code aloud is the one you received the application from. He gave it to you under these terms and conditions. It's up to him to enforce them.

Those who actually received a copy of the application from you can enforce that you give them what the license grants them (like: full source), but they can't make you do things that don't affect their own rights (like: give the source to others).

So if we assume there's Fabien, Nokia (=Ovi Store) and some anonymous contributor (call him A.C.) who wrote GPLed code for Stellarium: A.C. can request of Fabien that he should offer to publish the sources to "any third party". The same is true vor Fabien vs Nokia. But I cannot request Nokia make the sources available to my neighbours and friends as "third parties". I can only ask Nokia customer service to send me the sources, knowing I'll have the right to distribute them afterwards.
(Same as with other parts of the GPL that the Ovi Store clearly violates, but nobody but Fabien and his co-authors can force them to do.)

Again, it all comes down to: Will Nokia distribute the sources upon request? We'll soon know. Meanwhile, we must give them the benefit of the doubt - even if it's Nokia.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to benny1967 For This Useful Post:
ivyking, j.s, YoDude

fnordianslip | # 115 | 2010-10-24, 11:27 | Report

I'm not sure you've got the hang of this yet. Let me try and clarify it further.

As I understand it, Ovi Store can't legally distribute GPLv2 binaries without providing the source or providing a written offer to provide the source.

If they provide the source directly to recipients of the binary, their obligations are fullfilled. If they don't then the written offer they must provide applies to anyone, not only recipients of the binary, and this applies for 3 years after they stop distributing the binary.

If they don't satisfy these obligations, then they have no licence to distribute the binaries. Ceasing distribution doesn't nullify their prior breach of copyright law though and still leaves them vulnerable.

The only people who can enforce the obligation by suing Ovi Store are any of the copyright holders of the GPL'd code.

It's also my understanding that the GPL (v2) provides only freedoms to me as a recipient of such code, not obligations unless I choose to distribute it or derivatives of it.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to fnordianslip For This Useful Post:
Flandry, j.s, jjx

danramos | # 116 | 2010-10-24, 12:30 | Report

Just to help summarize: One is a matter of legality, the other is a matter of enforcement. I believe fnordianslip is trying to ask for clarify on the legality, not on the enforcement.

The Following User Says Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post:
fnordianslip

ysss | # 117 | 2010-10-24, 13:10 | Report

Sooooo... Is this the 'opensource' that's in everyone's mind when they publicly profess their FOSS love? When they scorn Google for their perversion of GPL?

danramos | # 118 | 2010-10-24, 13:15 | Report

I give out candy scorn to kids on Halloween.

attila77 | # 119 | 2010-10-24, 18:03 | Report

Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post

(Same as with other parts of the GPL that the Ovi Store clearly violates, but nobody but Fabien and his co-authors can force them to do.)

Again, it all comes down to: Will Nokia distribute the sources upon request? We'll soon know. Meanwhile, we must give them the benefit of the doubt - even if it's Nokia.

IANAL, it's not their job (and they don't really violate anything) as the Ovi T&C pins any FOSS license compliancy very specifically to the publisher:

Code:

16. Open Source Software

If Your Content includes any Open Source Software, You warrant that You comply with all applicable Open Source Software license terms. Furthermore, You warrant that You will not use any Open Source Software in such a way that would cause the non-Open
Source Software portions of the Program, Ovi Store, or any other Nokia software or the software of any of Nokia’s billing providers or any network operators enabling or featuring Ovi Store to be subject to any Open Source Software license terms.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to attila77 For This Useful Post:
GeneralAntilles, ivyking, javispedro, SubCore

Matan | # 120 | 2010-10-24, 18:54 | Report

Originally Posted by attila77 View Post

IANAL, it's not their job (and they don't really violate anything) as the Ovi T&C pins any FOSS license compliancy very specifically to the publisher:

Code:

16. Open Source Software

If Your Content includes any Open Source Software, You warrant that You comply with all applicable Open Source Software license terms. Furthermore, You warrant that You will not use any Open Source Software in such a way that would cause the non-Open
Source Software portions of the Program, Ovi Store, or any other Nokia software or the software of any of Nokia’s billing providers or any network operators enabling or featuring Ovi Store to be subject to any Open Source Software license terms.

This is a good time to quote object:

Originally Posted by object View Post

you don't know what you are talking about, thank you.