Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Maemo: Community

Council Meeting

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Maemo community RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


nybauer at gmail

Apr 11, 2012, 7:01 AM

Post #1 of 31 (505 views)
Permalink
Council Meeting

There will be a Council meeting (IRC - #maemo-meeting) at 15:00 UTC on
Tuesday April 17. Preliminary agenda is as follows:

Preliminary Agenda:
1. Welcome (back) to QGil/Update from Nokia(?)
2. Community OBS
3. Council Election voting
4. Left-over topics from last council meeting (if timely)
A. Qt style license agreement for maemo
B. Co-maintainership for CSSU repo


andrew at bleb

Apr 11, 2012, 7:19 AM

Post #2 of 31 (499 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On 11 April 2012 15:01, robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail> wrote:
> There will be a Council meeting (IRC - #maemo-meeting) at 15:00 UTC on
> Tuesday April 17.  Preliminary agenda is as follows:

>  Preliminary Agenda:
>  1.  Welcome (back) to QGil/Update from Nokia(?)
>  2.  Community OBS

Could you share a link to the appropriate background discussion; there
are a few? I'd also like to make sure I record the follow on
discussion I had with X-Fade after #mer-meeting in the right place.

>  3.  Council Election voting
>  4.  Left-over topics from last council meeting (if timely)
>       A.  Qt style license agreement for maemo

...and the same for this. Is there an actual proposal of what "Qt
style license" actually would mean for a closed/open mixed project?[1]

>       B.  Co-maintainership for CSSU repo

Background: http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=82372
Short version: MohammadAG was absent and there were changes the CSSU
developers would have liked to push, but the Garage account was linked
to Mohammad's RSA keys. A shared account is now being used as the
obvious workaround, but there's a decision for the community
prioritisation[2] as to how far up X-Fade's task list supporting
multiple different keys for the CSSU project is appropriate (unless it
is an easy win)

Thanks in advance,

Andrew

[1] http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1190357&postcount=810
[2] http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1187621&postcount=41

--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew [at] bleb  |  http://www.bleb.org/
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


jeremiah at jeremiahfoster

Apr 11, 2012, 8:03 AM

Post #3 of 31 (500 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 03:19:24PM +0100, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On 11 April 2012 15:01, robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail> wrote:
> > There will be a Council meeting (IRC - #maemo-meeting) at 15:00 UTC on
> > Tuesday April 17. Preliminary agenda is as follows:
>
> > Preliminary Agenda:
> > 1. Welcome (back) to QGil/Update from Nokia(?)
> > 2. Community OBS
>
> Could you share a link to the appropriate background discussion; there
> are a few? I'd also like to make sure I record the follow on
> discussion I had with X-Fade after #mer-meeting in the right place.
>
> > 3. Council Election voting
> > 4. Left-over topics from last council meeting (if timely)
> > A. Qt style license agreement for maemo
>
> ...and the same for this. Is there an actual proposal of what "Qt
> style license" actually would mean for a closed/open mixed project?[1]

I agree with Andrew here, there needs to be much more information. It
is unclear how a dual license scheme (i.e. Qt style license) would fit
here. How do you propose to close software that is explicitly licensed
as open?

[snip]

Regards,

Jeremiah
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


nybauer at gmail

Apr 12, 2012, 6:29 AM

Post #4 of 31 (495 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Andrew Flegg <andrew [at] bleb> wrote:

> On 11 April 2012 15:01, robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail> wrote:
> > There will be a Council meeting (IRC - #maemo-meeting) at 15:00 UTC on
> > Tuesday April 17. Preliminary agenda is as follows:
>
> > Preliminary Agenda:
> > 1. Welcome (back) to QGil/Update from Nokia(?)
> > 2. Community OBS
>
> Could you share a link to the appropriate background discussion; there
> are a few? I'd also like to make sure I record the follow on
> discussion I had with X-Fade after #mer-meeting in the right place.
>
There's a thread on developer's ML with the meeting logs. I don't think
there has been much discussion elsewhere.


>
> > 3. Council Election voting
> > 4. Left-over topics from last council meeting (if timely)
> > A. Qt style license agreement for maemo
>
> ...and the same for this. Is there an actual proposal of what "Qt
> style license" actually would mean for a closed/open mixed project?[1]
>
> This does indeed refer to a perpetual license to redistribute maemo closed
packages. No inventory exists yet of the desired packages. Not picked up
from Graham Cobb - this is a carryover from its earlier introduction in
January.


> > B. Co-maintainership for CSSU repo
>
> Background: http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=82372
> Short version: MohammadAG was absent and there were changes the CSSU
> developers would have liked to push, but the Garage account was linked
> to Mohammad's RSA keys. A shared account is now being used as the
> obvious workaround, but there's a decision for the community
> prioritisation[2] as to how far up X-Fade's task list supporting
> multiple different keys for the CSSU project is appropriate (unless it
> is an easy win)
>
Not a prioritization, but a request to learn what needs to be done to make
this happen (and whether it is a relatively small amount of time)

Rob



>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Andrew
>
> [1] http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1190357&postcount=810
> [2] http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1187621&postcount=41
>
> --
> <http://www.bleb.org/>
>


quim.gil at nokia

Apr 13, 2012, 11:43 AM

Post #5 of 31 (495 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

> Qt style license agreement for maemo

I also don't understand what does this mean. While Qt is a clearly
defined set of modules, all developed under the same upstream project,
contribution agreement, etc... Maemo (the OS) is a much wider collection
of software with several types of licenses (open, closed) and upstreams
(Nokia, OSS communities, private companies).

There is not much to discuss about the licenses that make Maemo since
Nokia has no intention to touch that now.

If we are talking about defining a Maemo community in similar terms than
the Qt Project, that is a totally different discussion. But still the
point above would stand: while the mission and scope of the Qt community
at http://qt-project.org is quite clear (using, developing and promoting
Qt libraries & Qt developer tools), http://maemo.org is a lot more fuzzy
and diverse.

Whatever it is, I believe we can progress better moving this to a TMO
discussion instead of IRC.

--
Quim
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


nybauer at gmail

Apr 15, 2012, 7:03 AM

Post #6 of 31 (488 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:

>
> There is not much to discuss about the licenses that make Maemo since
> Nokia has no intention to touch that now.
>
> Not surprising but disappointing nonetheless.


>
> Whatever it is, I believe we can progress better moving this to a TMO
> discussion instead of IRC.
>
>
Many people don't think the forum is a good place to get things done. I
tend to agree.


andrew at bleb

Apr 15, 2012, 7:21 AM

Post #7 of 31 (489 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On 15 April 2012 15:03, robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:
>>
>> There is not much to discuss about the licenses that make Maemo since
>> Nokia has no intention to touch that now.
>
> Not surprising but disappointing nonetheless.

There seem to be three distinct things being discussed, and I'm not
sure everyone is on the same page (this is an observation, and it
could be that *I've* got entirely the wrong end of the stick):

1) Create a self-governing, non-profit legal entity for maemo.org. It is
unclear (to me), what this would accomplish.

2) Relicense Maemo under a "Qt style licence". This would _appear_ to be
asking Nokia to open up source code they've said they haven't got the
staff or motivation to do.

3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
(e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.

>> Whatever it is, I believe we can progress better moving this to a TMO
>> discussion instead of IRC.
>
> Many people don't think the forum is a good place to get things done.  I
> tend to agree.

I would suggest that an IRC meeting is useful after initial
brainstorming/scene setting so that any specifics can be discussed.
However, to get people roughly aligned would be better done via the
mailing lists (the quoting and threading opportunties are better than
TMO for this, I think, but as long as there's a core conversation in a
single place, that's fine).

HTH,

Andrew

--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew [at] bleb  |  http://www.bleb.org/
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


nybauer at gmail

Apr 15, 2012, 7:54 AM

Post #8 of 31 (490 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Andrew Flegg <andrew [at] bleb> wrote:

> On 15 April 2012 15:03, robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:
> >>
> >> There is not much to discuss about the licenses that make Maemo since
> >> Nokia has no intention to touch that now.
> >
> > Not surprising but disappointing nonetheless.
>
> There seem to be three distinct things being discussed, and I'm not
> sure everyone is on the same page (this is an observation, and it
> could be that *I've* got entirely the wrong end of the stick):
>
> 1) Create a self-governing, non-profit legal entity for maemo.org. It is
> unclear (to me), what this would accomplish.
>
> 2) Relicense Maemo under a "Qt style licence". This would _appear_ to be
> asking Nokia to open up source code they've said they haven't got the
> staff or motivation to do.
>
> 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.
>
> As for the agenda item in the next council meeting, it's 3).


quim.gil at nokia

Apr 15, 2012, 9:53 AM

Post #9 of 31 (486 views)
Permalink
RE: Council Meeting [In reply to]

> 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.

The current setup works in this sense, right? What are the actual concerns or risks?

A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal entity. That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems to be a source of inspiration of this proposal - http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php

"maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo community is not a legal entity.

> Many people don't think the forum is a good place to get things done. I
> tend to agree.

Fine, my point was to avoid starting discussion from zero on IRC. Glad to see the discussion getting fine tuned here.

--
Quim
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


g+770 at cobb

Apr 15, 2012, 11:26 AM

Post #10 of 31 (488 views)
Permalink
RE: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On Sunday 15 April 2012 17:53:15 quim.gil [at] nokia wrote:
> > 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> > (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> > autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> > requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.
>
> The current setup works in this sense, right? What are the actual concerns
> or risks?

My concern (at least, it is a risk) is that Nokia may choose to discontinue
the maemo.org domain and the systems which support it (and related sites).
Particularly the systems which distribute the software which (i) makes the
devices work, and (ii) the software (packages) which allow for development.

A week ago I would have thought the probability of this occuring before the
end of 2012 was very small, although it was a risk for next year. After the
profit warning last week (and the collapse of the share price) I think it has
become a serious risk even for this year (despite budgets being in place). I
can imagine Nokia doing something major like just closing the Linux-based
business altogether, or selling it to another company.

> A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal entity.
> That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems to be a
> source of inspiration of this proposal -
> http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php

IANAL but I don't agree. An agreement with a legal entity *might* be the
right answer, but Nokia could also just publish a licence available to anyone
who follows certain rules (e.g. no derived works, proper acreditation, non-
commercial, or whatever rules Nokia wants -- not necessarily a CC licence but
along similar lines).

> "maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo
> community is not a legal entity.

But a legal entity could be set up if necessary. Personally, I prefer the
"licence anyone, under certain conditions" approach (not least because it
could be perpetual, instead of requiring the entity to continue to exist).

Graham
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


andrew at bleb

Apr 15, 2012, 11:36 AM

Post #11 of 31 (486 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On 15 April 2012 19:26, Graham Cobb <g+770 [at] cobb> wrote:
> On Sunday 15 April 2012 17:53:15 quim.gil [at] nokia wrote:
>
>> A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal entity.
>> That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems to be a
>> source of inspiration of this proposal -
>> http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
>
> IANAL but I don't agree.

Me neither, and thank you Graham for posting what I was going to (but
better put, as ever ;-))

> An agreement with a legal entity *might* be the right answer, but Nokia
> could also just publish a licence available to anyone who follows certain
> rules (e.g. no derived works, proper acreditation, non-commercial, or whatever
> rules Nokia wants -- not necessarily a CC licence but along similar lines).

Or even more restrictive such as (OTTOMH), "for the building of
software for, and use with, Nokia devices originally shipped with
Maemo".

>> "maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo
>> community is not a legal entity.
>
> But a legal entity could be set up if necessary.  Personally, I prefer the
> "licence anyone, under certain conditions" approach (not least because it
> could be perpetual, instead of requiring the entity to continue to exist).

Indeed. I'm eager to see the non-legal entity routes exhausted first
as, as you say, there's a continued existence aspect (and, the
corollary, that the entity is pursuing the agenda it was originally
established with) but also that I think it could be a step change in
the amount of work.

Cheers,

Andrew

--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew [at] bleb  |  http://www.bleb.org/
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


nybauer at gmail

Apr 15, 2012, 11:40 AM

Post #12 of 31 (488 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM, <quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:

>
> > 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> > (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> > autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> > requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.
>
> The current setup works in this sense, right? What are the actual concerns
> or risks?
>
> A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal entity.
> That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems to be a
> source of inspiration of this proposal -
> http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
>
> "maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo
> community is not a legal entity.
>
>
> You can have a "copyleft" type license that is not with another legal
entity. Also, what is the agreement with apps.formeego.org for Nokia
binaries? Are they are a legal entity?

Please also read the logs for the two community OBS meetings. The current
working presumption is that there will be a separate legal entity for the
community OBS.

Rob


twilight312 at gmail

Apr 16, 2012, 6:23 AM

Post #13 of 31 (488 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On nie 15 kwi 2012 16:21:38 CEST, Andrew Flegg <andrew [at] bleb> wrote:

> On 15 April 2012 15:03, robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is not much to discuss about the licenses that make Maemo since
> > > Nokia has no intention to touch that now.
> >
> > Not surprising but disappointing nonetheless.
>
> There seem to be three distinct things being discussed, and I'm not
> sure everyone is on the same page (this is an observation, and it
> could be that *I've* got entirely the wrong end of the stick):
>
>    1) Create a self-governing, non-profit legal entity for maemo.org. It
> is        unclear (to me), what this would accomplish.
>
>    2) Relicense Maemo under a "Qt style licence". This would _appear_ to
> be        asking Nokia to open up source code they've said they haven't got
> the        staff or motivation to do.
>
>    3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
>          (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
>          autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
>          requires formalising something permanently which is already
> happening.
>
> > > Whatever it is, I believe we can progress better moving this to a TMO
> > > discussion instead of IRC.
> >
> > Many people don't think the forum is a good place to get things done. 
> > I tend to agree.
>
> I would suggest that an IRC meeting is useful after initial
> brainstorming/scene setting so that any specifics can be discussed.
> However, to get people roughly aligned would be better done via the
> mailing lists (the quoting and threading opportunties are better than
> TMO for this, I think, but as long as there's a core conversation in a
> single place, that's fine).
>
> HTH,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew [at] bleb  |  http://www.bleb.org/
>

+1 to option 3, at least AFAIU. Option 1 is totally different thing, that doesn't seem suitable right now, and may be or may not be suitable in future (and most likely, couldn't be limited to Maemo only).

So, from my side, it's now all about option 3.

/Estel.


twilight312 at gmail

Apr 16, 2012, 6:27 AM

Post #14 of 31 (486 views)
Permalink
RE: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On nie 15 kwi 2012 18:53:15 CEST, quim.gil [at] nokia wrote:

>
> > 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> > (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> > autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> > requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.
>
> The current setup works in this sense, right? What are the actual
> concerns or risks?
>
> A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal
> entity. That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems
> to be a source of inspiration of this proposal -
> http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
>
> "maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo
> community is not a legal entity.
>
> > Many people don't think the forum is a good place to get things done.
> > I tend to agree.
>
> Fine, my point was to avoid starting discussion from zero on IRC. Glad
> to see the discussion getting fine tuned here.
>
> --
> Quim

No problem to become one (legal entity). Yet, as for risk - as You know better than us, times are hard for Nokia, and today's promises may not be valid tommorow. No one got FCKN clue who will be Nokia's "executives" in half year time, *if* there will be a Nokia still (no offense/provocation here), or if it's going to see supporting us via providing Nokia's binaries (and using them in build process) as a priority worth to keep it.

All after all, we would like to be "insured" - it doesn't hurt either side, yep?

/Estel


quim.gil at nokia

Apr 16, 2012, 12:13 PM

Post #15 of 31 (486 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

Hi,

If the main motivation for all this is still the fear of Nokia (or its
budget) vanishing tomorrow then allow me to insist on the 'take it easy'
approach. Sure, let's continue this discussion but not under some
abstract pressure and urgency.


On 04/15/2012 11:36 AM, ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
>> Nokia
>> could also just publish a licence available to anyone who follows certain
>> rules (e.g. no derived works, proper acreditation, non-commercial, or whatever
>> rules Nokia wants -- not necessarily a CC licence but along similar lines).
>
> Or even more restrictive such as (OTTOMH), "for the building of
> software for, and use with, Nokia devices originally shipped with
> Maemo".

Understood. What software components would be covered by this license?
Are we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo & MeeGo
Harmattan targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?

About the builders, we need to know exactly what we have both in terms
of software used and agreements made. Matti is away this week. Maybe
that agreement is already enough to keep what it's there. In any case
the discussion of moving targets to COBS (or maemo.org OBS) is relevant,
maybe we can assure whatever needs to be assured since a new Harmattan
target will need to be created?

About http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1157882&postcount=710 - is
there anything still to be answered? If so, what is the question today?

--
Quim
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


andrew at bleb

Apr 16, 2012, 2:08 PM

Post #16 of 31 (485 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On 16 April 2012 20:13, Quim Gil <quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:
>
> Understood. What software components would be covered by this license? Are
> we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo & MeeGo Harmattan
> targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?

At a minimum, AIUI, it's whatever parts of the SDK are needed to keep
the Autobuilder (targetting Chinook, Diablo, Fremantle, Harmattan) or
COBS running.

However, it should also extend to redistributing those parts in the
form of SDKs; and possibly even firmware images.

Graham's summary is a good one to start basing discussions round, I think:

http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/2012-April/005076.html

Cheers,

Andrew

--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew [at] bleb  |  http://www.bleb.org/
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


nybauer at gmail

Apr 16, 2012, 8:12 PM

Post #17 of 31 (483 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:

> About http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1157882&postcount=710 - is
> there anything still to be answered? If so, what is the question today?
>
>
It wouldn't hurt to confirm the quote from March 2011 and, as an example,
that things such as plans to move AFM authentication, OBS and wiki -
http://communitizer.blogspot.com/2012/01/apps-for-meego.html - will be
discussed with community council.

I think the rest can't be answered by words today, and has to be
experienced over a period of time when the community is able to see it has
control over maemo infrastructure. The community OBS seems to be a good
step in the right direction.

Rob


andrew at bleb

Apr 17, 2012, 12:59 AM

Post #18 of 31 (486 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On 17 April 2012 04:12, robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> It wouldn't hurt to confirm the quote from March 2011 and, as an example,
> that things such as plans to move AFM authentication, OBS and wiki -
> http://communitizer.blogspot.com/2012/01/apps-for-meego.html - will be
> discussed with community council.

Although you have a good point with the latter, I don't think that's a
thing for Quim/Nokia to specifically comment on. It's between X-Fade,
the folks behind AFM, Nemein and the Community Council; right?

Cheers,

Andrew

--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew [at] bleb  |  http://www.bleb.org/
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


quim.gil at nokia

Apr 17, 2012, 1:31 PM

Post #19 of 31 (485 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On 04/16/2012 02:08 PM, ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On 16 April 2012 20:13, Quim Gil<quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:
>>
>> Understood. What software components would be covered by this license? Are
>> we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo& MeeGo Harmattan
>> targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?
>
> At a minimum, AIUI, it's whatever parts of the SDK are needed to keep
> the Autobuilder (targetting Chinook, Diablo, Fremantle, Harmattan) or
> COBS running.

I sent a first question to the Nokia legal team and I got a first
answer. They need to know the exact list of packages, with a special
attention of any proprietary binary coming from third parties.


> However, it should also extend to redistributing those parts in the
> form of SDKs; and possibly even firmware images.

Let's try solve the OBS case. If it is solved, then the SDK will be a
direct consequence.

About firmware images, this looks more complicated since 3rd party blobs
are definitely involved there plus a potential collection of
certifications and liabilities (my own guess, "I'm not a layer", etc).

--
Quim
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


nybauer at gmail

Apr 18, 2012, 4:42 AM

Post #20 of 31 (486 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:

> On 04/16/2012 02:08 PM, ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
>
>> On 16 April 2012 20:13, Quim Gil<quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Understood. What software components would be covered by this license?
>>> Are
>>> we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo& MeeGo Harmattan
>>>
>>> targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?
>>>
>>
>> At a minimum, AIUI, it's whatever parts of the SDK are needed to keep
>> the Autobuilder (targetting Chinook, Diablo, Fremantle, Harmattan) or
>> COBS running.
>>
>
> I sent a first question to the Nokia legal team and I got a first answer.
> They need to know the exact list of packages, with a special attention of
> any proprietary binary coming from third parties.
>
> Thanks. Obviously, it will take some time to get that list together.


However, it should also extend to redistributing those parts in the
> form of SDKs; and possibly even firmware images.
>

Let's try solve the OBS case. If it is solved, then the SDK will be a
> direct consequence.
>
> About firmware images, this looks more complicated since 3rd party blobs
> are definitely involved there plus a potential collection of certifications
> and liabilities (my own guess, "I'm not a layer", etc).
>
>
OK

Rob


quim.gil at nokia

Apr 18, 2012, 10:17 AM

Post #21 of 31 (486 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On 04/17/2012 01:31 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
> I sent a first question to the Nokia legal team and I got a first
> answer. They need to know the exact list of packages, with a special
> attention of any proprietary binary coming from third parties.

Forgot to say that I asked already Soumya Bijjal and Niels about those
lists.

A starting point:

Harmattan:
http://harmattan-dev.nokia.com/stable/harmattan/beta3_vs_final_content_comparison.html

Fremantle:
http://repository.maemo.org/stable/fremantle/maemo5.0_update6_vs_maemo5.0_update7_content_comparison.html

Diablo:
http://repository.maemo.org/stable/diablo/4.1.1_vs_4.1.2_content_comparison.html

Chinook:
http://repository.maemo.org/stable/chinook/4.0_vs_4.0.1_content_comparison.html

I have asked them whether all those packages are REQUIRED for an OBS
target.

The open source package are irrelevant since they can be "re-hosted" and
redistributed already now.

Then we have the proprietary packages. All they appear as 'Nokia
binaries' but in fact some of those my have a non-Nokia copyright. This
is what Soumya will need to parse i order to find the 3rd party
proprietary binaries.

From a legal point of view Nokia and non-Nokia binaries are two totally
different categories since Nokia cannot grant any permissions for the
latter on its own.

If there are 3rd party binaries that are required to build OBS targets
then I will go back to my point of how worth it is to change the current
situation given that there is no actual risk anybody could point to on
Nokia pulling hosting & funds for the servers where that software is
currently hosted. As explained in the IRC meeting, changing the terms
for the Nokia binaries without a strong business reason is already
complex. I expect convincing legal teams in other companies under the
same arguments to be even more complicated.

--
Quim
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


nybauer at gmail

Apr 18, 2012, 10:30 AM

Post #22 of 31 (486 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:

> On 04/17/2012 01:31 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
>
>> I sent a first question to the Nokia legal team and I got a first
>> answer. They need to know the exact list of packages, with a special
>> attention of any proprietary binary coming from third parties.
>>
>
> Forgot to say that I asked already Soumya Bijjal and Niels about those
> lists.
>
> A starting point:
>
> Harmattan:
> http://harmattan-dev.nokia.**com/stable/harmattan/beta3_vs_**
> final_content_comparison.html<http://harmattan-dev.nokia.com/stable/harmattan/beta3_vs_final_content_comparison.html>
>
> Fremantle:
> http://repository.maemo.org/**stable/fremantle/maemo5.0_**
> update6_vs_maemo5.0_update7_**content_comparison.html<http://repository.maemo.org/stable/fremantle/maemo5.0_update6_vs_maemo5.0_update7_content_comparison.html>
>
> Diablo:
> http://repository.maemo.org/**stable/diablo/4.1.1_vs_4.1.2_**
> content_comparison.html<http://repository.maemo.org/stable/diablo/4.1.1_vs_4.1.2_content_comparison.html>
>
> Chinook:
> http://repository.maemo.org/**stable/chinook/4.0_vs_4.0.1_**
> content_comparison.html<http://repository.maemo.org/stable/chinook/4.0_vs_4.0.1_content_comparison.html>
>
> I have asked them whether all those packages are REQUIRED for an OBS
> target.
>
> The open source package are irrelevant since they can be "re-hosted" and
> redistributed already now.
>
> Then we have the proprietary packages. All they appear as 'Nokia binaries'
> but in fact some of those my have a non-Nokia copyright. This is what
> Soumya will need to parse i order to find the 3rd party proprietary
> binaries.
>
> From a legal point of view Nokia and non-Nokia binaries are two totally
> different categories since Nokia cannot grant any permissions for the
> latter on its own.
>
> If there are 3rd party binaries that are required to build OBS targets
> then I will go back to my point of how worth it is to change the current
> situation given that there is no actual risk anybody could point to on
> Nokia pulling hosting & funds for the servers where that software is
> currently hosted. As explained in the IRC meeting, changing the terms for
> the Nokia binaries without a strong business reason is already complex. I
> expect convincing legal teams in other companies under the same arguments
> to be even more complicated.
>
>
>
Thanks for the lists. Sure, if it turns out there are 3rd party binaries
needed for an OBS target, then let's pause the process and discuss the
situation.

Rob


woody at rochester

Apr 18, 2012, 12:08 PM

Post #23 of 31 (485 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

=============
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil [at] nokia> wrote:

> On 04/17/2012 01:31 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
>
> From a legal point of view Nokia and non-Nokia binaries are two totally
> different categories since Nokia cannot grant any permissions for the
> latter on its own.
> [...]
> I expect convincing legal teams in other companies under the same arguments
> to be even more complicated.

---- robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail> wrote:
>Thanks for the lists. Sure, if it turns out there are 3rd party binaries
>needed for an OBS target, then let's pause the process and discuss the
>situation.

I agree if 3rd party binaries are involved we should pause to examine the possible impact.

One thing I want to keep in mind though, is that Nokia already has _some_ kind of agreement in place to redistribute these 3rd party binaries to end users as part of the existing SDK. Those agreements _may_ in fact already allow for what's being asked, which could mean no further input or discussions would be required with that/those 3rd parties.

Having worked in the field, I can tell you that it's likely that Nokia lawyers took the _most_ restrictive component policy (which may in fact have been for a Nokia component) and blanket applied that to _everything_ for simplicity sake. If the components that triggered the hosting policy are not in the sub-set needed for OBS, we may be able to ask for that sub-set to be specifically called out with a slightly less strict policy. So even if there are 3rd party bits, it may not require additional input from them if the existing contracts, for that sub-set, are open enough.

In a nutshell: The mere existence of a single 3rd party element shouldn't automatically trigger a derailment the idea.

We definitely need to determine exactly what's needed though, and identify if (or how many) 3rd parties are involved. I suspect it will be at most two or three, which could still merit a request of a quick re-examine of the existing terms to see if this is doable without changing anything with the 3rd parties. That feedback may also inform us of what structure could be used to do this without changing those terms (eg. would forming a legal entity to host them even be a legally viable alternative.)

Also, let's not forget this tech is aging. Some components may have already been opened up more by the vendors themselves. Some vendors may be willing to open part of their older tech in ways they wouldn't have several years ago.

-Woody(14619)
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


quim.gil at nokia

Apr 18, 2012, 12:34 PM

Post #24 of 31 (486 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On 04/18/2012 12:08 PM, ext Craig Woodward wrote:
> Also, let's not forget this tech is aging. Some components may have
> already been opened up more by the vendors themselves. Some vendors
> may be willing to open part of their older tech in ways they wouldn't
> have several years ago.

I'm not holding my breath. Third party components might have been
developed by subcontractors under certain premises, making things even
more complicated. Aging tech also means older contracts handled by
people not around, making it very easy to get gray answers defaulting to
silence or nope-sorry in a situation like this.

--
Quim


_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community


andrew at bleb

Apr 19, 2012, 2:43 AM

Post #25 of 31 (486 views)
Permalink
Re: Council Meeting [In reply to]

On 11 April 2012 15:01, robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail> wrote:
> There will be a Council meeting (IRC - #maemo-meeting) at 15:00 UTC on
> Tuesday April 17.  Preliminary agenda is as follows:
>
>  Preliminary Agenda:
>  1.  Welcome (back) to QGil/Update from Nokia(?)
>  2.  Community OBS
>  3.  Council Election voting
>  4.  Left-over topics from last council meeting (if timely)
>       A.  Qt style license agreement for maemo
>       B.  Co-maintainership for CSSU repo

Will minutes, and a link to the full log, be circulated (preferably
published on the Council blog) for those who couldn't attend but want
to see the outcome?

Thanks in advance,

Andrew

--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew [at] bleb  |  http://www.bleb.org/
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
maemo-community [at] maemo
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Maemo community RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.