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@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
