The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Stskeeps For This Useful Post: | ||
5spdvl, Andre Klapper, attila77, danielpublic, danramos, debernardis, fw190, lma, MohammadAG, qgil, qole, Rauha, shiny, sjgadsby, Texrat, timsamoff, Tomaszd, v13, Wikiwide |
|
2010-02-18
, 16:08
|
Posts: 49 |
Thanked: 31 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Moscow, Russia
|
#2
|
The Following User Says Thank You to yoush For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-02-18
, 16:23
|
|
Posts: 1,671 |
Thanked: 11,478 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ Warsaw, Poland
|
#3
|
|
2010-02-18
, 16:35
|
Posts: 1,513 |
Thanked: 2,248 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ US
|
#4
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SD69 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-02-18
, 17:17
|
|
Posts: 1,671 |
Thanked: 11,478 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ Warsaw, Poland
|
#5
|
Previously, people were told to make license change proposals in Brainstorm:
http://wiki.maemo.org/Open_developme...losed_packages
but it seems that the queue is already populated with those that were filed as bugs. It is nice that the legwork was done to include them, but the queue just opened, and the proposals filed as bugs are listed with preexisting votes. One has 52 votes and it must have taken awhile to accumulate that many votes.
I suggest that voting should be restarted or at least that preexisting votes should not be the dominant factor in determining which requests get put at the top of the queue.
And if a request is improper, will the requester be contacted to inform him or her of that so they know to correct the request?
The Following User Says Thank You to Stskeeps For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-02-18
, 20:10
|
|
Posts: 1,671 |
Thanked: 11,478 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ Warsaw, Poland
|
#6
|
|
2010-02-27
, 14:18
|
Posts: 1,513 |
Thanked: 2,248 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ US
|
#7
|
|
2010-02-27
, 17:22
|
|
Posts: 1,671 |
Thanked: 11,478 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ Warsaw, Poland
|
#8
|
|
2010-02-27
, 17:41
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 7,109 |
Thanked: 8,820 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
#9
|
...and the first success (FIXED) with a clear statement for CSSU:
9145 - Permission to modify and redistribute "OS2008 Feature upgrade" metapackages
Carsten:
I don't think there is any legal problem to create a package similar to the
data of dpkg -s osso-software-version-rx44 output on a device as it is
basically a construct of all software versions on a device SSU along with some
versioning data for the SSU itself and some flags publically described in the
HAM documentation/test cases above. Especially when it is for the basis of a
community SSU.
Quim:
I agree.
What matters here is the communication part. Describe well to end users what
are you actually offering to download. Make sure there is no confusion about
this being a community provided update with no guarantees as opposed to a Nokia
official update.
Keep all this in the segment of "community collaboration" and "open source
innovation" and everything will be fine.
|
2010-02-27
, 18:23
|
Posts: 1,224 |
Thanked: 1,763 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
|
#10
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Matan For This Useful Post: | ||
http://wiki.maemo.org/Open_developme...hange_requests
Feel free to submit yours, follow procedure, and let's see where this leads
My hope is that it will lead to more constructive discussion and more openness of the Maemo OS. There are some existing proposals open already, that I will be evaluating over the next couple of days in order to prioritize them.
As you go on to other communities, remember to build them around politeness, respect, trust and humility. Be wary of poisonous people and deal with them before they end up killing your community.. Seen it happen to too many IRC channels, forums, open source projects.