On Oct 29, 2010, at 22:45, Auke Kok wrote: > On 10/29/10 02:28, Igor Stoppa wrote: >> Hi, >> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 09:22 +0100, ext Andrew Flegg wrote: >>> The lack of information can lead to the >>> frustration in this thread - especially if there are still mistakes >>> slipping through (such as #8474). >> >> Let's try to clarify some aspect that seems to be going under the radar. >> Here we are dealing also with 3rd party IPs, including - mostly - HW/FW.
There is no place for third party non-OSI approved software or firmware in an Open Source bugtracker. Please see bug 9525 which blocks the MeeGo Meta Openness bug 4898 (http://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=9525) Having third party firmware of software opens MeeGo up to patent litigation. >> While the goal is obviously to be as open as possible, it's a fact hat >> some _HW_ companies might get - rightfully - touchy if their data is >> published in an uncontrolled way. This seems incompatible with Open Source development. I don't think this is in fact a reasonable request and I don't think it should be honored. Intel and other companies are being very open with the MeeGo software and hardware, it seems completely unfair that bugs can't get fixed due to hardware vendor's unreasonable demands. Filing bugs is clearly within a user's rights, after all, it is their hardware and they should be allowed to get it to work and a bug report is a fundamental part of this. Furthermore, I am certain that at least some of the closed bugs in Bugzilla are also filed in other places, so you are not closing the bugs or the issues with the buggy firmware, you are only closing off the opportunity for someone to fix the issue for you in MeeGo. You will now be dependent on other software projects, like Debian (who never close bugs) because people will actually be able to see the bugs in Debian's system and fix them there instead of in MeeGo. >> >> There are processes in place to ensure that data is published in a >> controlled way, but they take time. Is this policy part of an official Linux Foundation document? My understanding with most Open Source projects is that bugs would never be hidden - the current policy, even if it applies to just one hardware vendor, seems to be in direct contradiction to the Linux Foundation claims to openness. I'd like to point out that the Linux Foundation bylaws state; "The purposes of this corporation include promoting, protecting, and standardizing Linux and open source software." >> >> #8474 was a mistake in the sense that it should have not gone public at >> all - at least not now. And the following glitch closed-public-closed >> was another thing that could have been avoided. > > this is a rather misrepresentation of the problem. > > bug #8474 is in fact titled: > > === > Bug 8474 - [1.2] "org.oFono" service can not be found on Dbus with > voicecallhistory issue > === > > There is nothing about this bug that should have been private to begin with. > The real issue is that information was entered into this bug report that was > irrelevant that forced me to reclose the bug (although I still highly object > to this bug being closed). > > here is the original core content of bug 8474: > > === > 1.Boot image to home screen. Check the default configuration of > /etc/ofonod/modem.conf [phonesim] section is commented. > 2.Launch dialer, the dialog "Fail to connect to org.ofonod.Manager: is ofonod > running?" pops up while ofonod process is running. > 3.Uncomment the [phonesim] section and make sure address is 127.0.0.1. > 4.Dialer is uable to launcher from quick launch bar. > === > > nothing in here that can't be disclosed and doesn't accurately describe the > bug to begin with. > > This bug should have been filed properly without referencing content that > couldn't be disclosed, then the whole discussion would have never happened. > > Auke > _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
