Mailing List Archive: Re: maemo-community Digest, Vol 67, Issue 9

Re: maemo-community Digest, Vol 67, Issue 9

Apr 14, 2012, 7:22 PM

Post #1 of 3 (355 views)

Thanks for Your informative answer, Timo! I must admit, that I'm
totally green when it comes to OBS, so simple explanations like one
You've provided are really appreciated.

@Quim
I would prefer to keep "branch" of conversation, related to ideas of
Maemo being defined as QT-like community project on mailing list -
this way, people that doesn't read TMO/IRC religiously, still have
chance to participate.

The whole thing is about statement made by former Nokia
representatives (I hope SD69 will soon dig this out of dust and bring
quotations here), which seems to be unknown for You and marias before
You. I agree, that it isn't most important thing *right now*, but it
may be important later.

Also, please remember, that it isn't entirely "asking if Nokia allow
us" to do that - I stand in position, that Community itself shape way
it want to maintain itself/be maintained. In "worst case scenario",
Community may separate against Nokia's will. Of course, everyone would
like to avoid such situation - it would be costly for both Nokia (PR
stuff, distrust on customer's side, bad press) and Community (troubles
with distributing things from so-called "Nokia's repos", basically
only applicable via p2p networks between N900/N8xx/N7xx users).

I also admit, that due to recent momentum in collaboration and
cooperation, separating isn't a need *now*. Which doesn't mean, that
it isn't held as backup solution - if only for situations, where lack
of cooperation may not being directly Nokia's fault (financial
problems/bankruptcy, being bought-off etc).

/Estel

2012/4/14, maemo-community-request@maemo.org
<maemo-community-request@maemo.org>:
> Send maemo-community mailing list submissions to
> maemo-community@maemo.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> maemo-community-request@maemo.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> maemo-community-owner@maemo.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of maemo-community digest..."
>
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community

Re: maemo-community Digest, Vol 67, Issue 9 [ In reply to ]

g+770 at cobb

Apr 15, 2012, 3:14 AM

Post #2 of 3 (347 views)

Permalink

On Sunday 15 April 2012 03:22:46 Piotr Jawidzyk wrote:
> I also admit, that due to recent momentum in collaboration and
> cooperation, separating isn't a need *now*. Which doesn't mean, that
> it isn't held as backup solution - if only for situations, where lack
> of cooperation may not being directly Nokia's fault (financial
> problems/bankruptcy, being bought-off etc).

I don't reallly understand what you may be proposing here, but if it will
involve violating Nokia's licences (e.g. distributing their proprietary
software **without** permission) then it is probably best not discussed in any
open forum or mailing list! Certainly not here. Nor is it, in my opinion,
necessary to have such a discussion yet.

I am much more interested in a discussion with Quim about getting permission
(a permanent licence of some form) for whatever we need to do to keep the
devices and community going if/when Nokia decide not to support us financially
any more. This is more urgent because, with the best will in the world,
Nokia's current financial situation may cause them to have to take some
unpleasant decisions sooner than they expected.

Graham
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community

Re: maemo-community Digest, Vol 67, Issue 9 [ In reply to ]

twilight312 at gmail

Apr 16, 2012, 6:20 AM

Post #3 of 3 (347 views)

Permalink

On nie 15 kwi 2012 12:14:18 CEST, Graham Cobb <g+770@cobb.uk.net> wrote:

> On Sunday 15 April 2012 03:22:46 Piotr Jawidzyk wrote:
> > I also admit, that due to recent momentum in collaboration and
> > cooperation, separating isn't a need *now*. Which doesn't mean, that
> > it isn't held as backup solution - if only for situations, where lack
> > of cooperation may not being directly Nokia's fault (financial
> > problems/bankruptcy, being bought-off etc).
>
> I don't reallly understand what you may be proposing here, but if it
> willÂ involve violating Nokia's licences (e.g. distributing their
> proprietaryÂ software **without** permission) then it is probably best
> not discussed in anyÂ open forum or mailing list!Â Certainly not here.
> Nor is it, in my opinion,Â necessary to have such a discussion yet.
>
> I am much more interested in a discussion with Quim about getting
> permissionÂ (a permanent licence of some form) for whatever we need to
> do to keep theÂ devices and community going if/when Nokia decide not to
> support us financiallyÂ any more.Â This is more urgent because, with the
> best will in the world,Â Nokia's current financial situation may cause
> them to have to take someÂ unpleasant decisions sooner than they
> expected.
>
> Graham
>

Calm down, it is exactly what I mean. Also, please, don't imply, that I'm talking about violating any license - I'm just talking about same thing as You - it would be best to have such permission as a backup solution for situations, where Nokia can't provide support despite willing to.

Without this - in case of any "emergency change of plans" we're back to *legally* share N900 software's ("Nokia's repos") backups between N*** users. I say again - legally - cause we have right to, as people who already bought devices and/or updated it's software to latest content. In such case, way of doing it doesn't matter (sending CD's is as good as p2p transfer) as long as it's backup between people legally right to use them.

Nevertheless, it would be most uncomfortable situation, with manually resolving dependencies - hell for end users (cause we wouldn't be allowed to host something like repo - only backups. I think everyone want to avoid such situation, thus I don't see conflict point.

/Estel