Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
pe, 2010-01-29 kello 08:43 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez kirjoitti: On 26/01/2010 21:13, Graham Cobb wrote: As a member of the Council I would say that we need to somewhere make it clear that by uploading a source package to maemo.org, you are giving maemo.org a licence to redistribute that source and the binaries built from it (and that you assert you have the right to give such a licence). Shall we add that to http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras? What if people upload stuff don't have the right to give maemo.org that licence? If they aren't the copyright holder, there's no way they can give that right if it's not already allowed. Then maemo.org has no legal right to distribute the software even to users, and it cannot go into the repositories. If it's already in, the repository admins must remove the packages -- remove first, ask later. There is absolutely no point to put the software in the repository in such a case, if nobody is allowed even to download it. Clear, yes? -- Pauli Virtanen ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
On 01/27/2010 05:04 PM, ext Dave Neary wrote: Hi, Riku Voipio wrote: Well, such misunderstandings are likely to be caused by the poor extras instructions. Which exact page should Henrik read to get enlightened? David King I are working on improving these. Having not gone through the process myself, I need help. Your questions are great, because they help me identify the questions I need to ask get answered. As someone who went through the whole undocumented experience of getting a package to extras, I can help in any questions. For the current best information on uploading to extras, there are: http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_extras and This document is generally ok, but the link to next step, extras-testing leaves developers lost. http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing Which is, in fact, a document for endusers and testers, not developers. At this point the, developer faces a bunch of questions; 1) where did my package go after dput 2) what exactly do I need to promote the package 3) how can I follow the whole process Eventually I found the http://maemo.org/packages/view/package/ link, and figured out that one needs to click on latest armel version while being logged in, to see the promote link. (Why are x86 packages shown in the first place here?) After you have got this far, you get your first tester that tells you that you need to have bugtracker. Ofcourse, this was not documented on any of the previous steps, and conviniently not mentioned at extras-testing wikipage either. Google to help. Apparently one needs a XSBC-Bugtracker: field in debian/control and request a bugzilla section at bugs.maemo.org. Next, once one has managed to get the 10 votes, one is left wondering what happens. Apparently one will get a mail about promotion unlocked when you can finally push it to extras. Now people are asking me to add a screenshot. But I couldn't find out where or howto do that. Turns out the promoting to extras creates a: http://maemo.org/downloads/product/Maemo5/package/ page. But even after loggin in, there is no explanation howto add a screenshot... What is worrying, that this was a major struggle for me. And I actually know a lot about debian and maemo, how much more lost someone who just arrived to maemo would be? http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras right now. This is clearly a enduser doc. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Hi, I'll fill in my experience, similar to Riku's. On 01/28/2010 12:59 PM, Voipio Riku (Nokia-D/Helsinki) wrote: On 01/27/2010 05:04 PM, ext Dave Neary wrote: Hi, Riku Voipio wrote: Well, such misunderstandings are likely to be caused by the poor extras instructions. Which exact page should Henrik read to get enlightened? David King I are working on improving these. Having not gone through the process myself, I need help. Your questions are great, because they help me identify the questions I need to ask get answered. As someone who went through the whole undocumented experience of getting a package to extras, I can help in any questions. My experience is based on documentation in December 09, so very recent and I don't see much of a change in documentation since, so it applies pretty well to current situation. For the current best information on uploading to extras, there are: http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_extras and This document is generally ok, but the link to next step, extras-testing leaves developers lost. Document in generally OK, but what bothers me with most of the documentation is that they're more or less often outdated, filled with Diablo or Chinook related information. Same thing with Uploading to extras document. It should be primarily about the current process, and the old stuff should be moved to separate legacy documents. Its really tiresome to read lots of obsolete documentation just to find out they help you nowhere and you've wasted your precious time. http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing Which is, in fact, a document for endusers and testers, not developers. True, and the link pointing to previous document uses a broken anchor, so you need to locate the information yourself. At this point the, developer faces a bunch of questions; 1) where did my package go after dput I think where package went it was documented well enough in Upload to extras documentation, but not where YOU should go to find it. 2) what exactly do I need to promote the package The promotion process is shortly described in the Uploading.. document. Finding your package from package interface for devel is a pain btw (why isn't there an alphabetical quicklinks, only 6 links to following pages without even showing total number of pages...) 3) how can I follow the whole process Obviously, if you find your package above you can see the process :) It took me some time to figure out that too. Eventually I found the http://maemo.org/packages/view/package/ link, and figured out that one needs to click on latest armel version while being logged in, to see the promote link. (Why are x86 packages shown in the first place here?) +1 for the question. After you have got this far, you get your first tester that tells you that you need to have bugtracker. Ofcourse, this was not documented on any of the previous steps, and conviniently not mentioned at extras-testing wikipage either. Google to help. Apparently one needs a XSBC-Bugtracker: field in debian/control and request a bugzilla section at bugs.maemo.org. True, thats a typical experience: first thing they say is you miss a bugtracker and friendly name (possibly an icon too!) and neither of those are mentioned in above pages either. Next, once one has managed to get the 10 votes, one is left wondering what happens. Apparently one will get a mail about promotion unlocked when you can finally push it to extras. This is covered in Extras testing document, with a big nice NOT FINAL FIXME reminder. Also the chapter content looks like guesswork as well. BTW, you need 10 karma, 10 days of quarantine (this is very easily forgotten and can be seen by people asking 'I got 25 votes and I see no promote buttons, omglolbbq!') and supposedly, 3 senior tester votes (I still don't know who or what is considered senior tester, or if this actually is correct information) Now people are asking me to add a screenshot. But I couldn't find out where or howto do that. Turns out the promoting to extras creates a: http://maemo.org/downloads/product/Maemo5/package/ page. But even after loggin in, there is no explanation howto add a screenshot... That little pesky, hovering toolbar is a real pain in the bottocks, but it turns out to be the thing to modify stuff in Midgard. Horrible implementation of such toolbar BTW. What is worrying, that this was a major struggle for me. And I actually know a lot about debian and maemo, how much more lost someone who just arrived to maemo would be? Yeah, I second this. It can definately scare people off, and to top that with permission required to upload stuff delays, (old) servers response time problems lately etc, it can easily scare people off. Also not having SSO is very annoying and search feature sucking is one major letdown as well, especially when you try finding documentation for these things. That turned out to be rather lengthy, thanks for
RE: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Marius, I'm sorry if I'm not as good as others on this list and did not know that everyone here has already agreed what 'free' should mean in perpetuity for maemo developers, and for that matter, anyone that might decide to download something from specific repositories. Be sure to keep your attitude and encourage others to go develop iPhone or Android apps. If, on the other hand, there are ever any discussions about what really should go in which repositories, how testing should be handled for these repositories, and so on, it might make sense to re-evaluate the underlying assumptions. Aldon -Original Message- From: Marius Vollmer [mailto:marius.voll...@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:24 AM To: ext Aldon Hynes Cc: maemo-developers@maemo.org Subject: Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free? ext Aldon Hynes aldon.hy...@orient-lodge.com writes: While there are some in the free software movement that hold to various definitions of what 'free' means as well as many different licenses that people argue about, to most people buying cellphones, those discussions are meaningless. In the context of this discussion, however, people know what they mean with free. You are not contributing by bringing up the age old confusion that others create about the term. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
I can't speak for Marius but I can say that in the (hardcore) Linux world Free has generally meant libre rather than gratis, except where specifically stated. I hope that the quotes and a parenthetical qualifier for that judging statement show that I am not implying anything good or bad about people who do or do not know the distinguishment. This can be viewed as such a common assumption that when we talk about free and non-free we mistakenly make the assumption that everyone knows which definition we are using. This might come up more frequently as Maemo grows from being mostly used by Linux geeks. Please reread Marius' email in that context. I do not think there is malice in his words. As for the value in switching from libre to gratis... Maemo was based on a desktop distribution called Debian which has a strong Free Software (libre) culture. This is where the tradition of free and non-free repos comes from. Personally I think switching from the repos meaning libre to gratis would add as much confusion as they do now because of Maemo's history. I'm not too sure what would be the point of a non-free (non-gratis) repository as I doubt maemo.org is going to open up an app store and be a means of for-profit distribution especially on Nokia's dime in competition to Ovi. Besides historical reasons in distinguishing free (libre) and non-free (non-libre), I would think it it would mostly matter to community members and mean zilch to end-users. I know there has been discussion of a different QA process for non-free (non-libre) due to its nature but I stopped following the QA process discussions and do not know what the resolution was. I would imagine it would make a big difference to Mer as it would represent packages that the community could auto-rebuild for other architectures or crowd-source if any porting effort was needed. I hope this helped in someway. Ed Page (epage) ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
RE: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Ed, Marius, et al. I think your comment about Maemo grows from being mostly used by Linux geeks gets to my key concern. I can see arguments for repositories being either libre or gratis and I believe it is important to re-evaluate these arguments if there is any desire for Maemo to grow beyond being mostly used by Linux geeks. Personally, I hope that it does. I do not see any intended malice in Marius' email and I do not mean to pick on him. However, I am very concerned that much of the tone here may drive away mobile phone application developers that are not Linux evangelists. I think that would be unfortunate. I would like to see the N900 and its descendents as dominant devices in the smartphone market. To do so, we need to think about how we relate to all developers. Would it make sense for maemo.org to have non-gratis repositories? Personally, I think there is value to this. One of the complaints about Apple is the way they control their App Store. Unless you jailbreak your iPhone, you need to run apps from the App Store, which is a pain to get apps into and gives Apple complete control over what gets run on non-jailbroke phones. While Nokia would probably like to make a cut on every non-gratis app sold, they would probably be wise not to follow the Apple model and become a bottleneck. As such, a non-gratis repository on maemo.org would probably be a good thing. For that matter, given the open nature of maemo, I could easily see someone else setting up non-gratis repositories as their own app stores. This, I believe would be good for the N900 and related devices. As such, we then come back to the nature of QA. Apple uses the QA argument as the reason that they should be the only App Store for the iPhone. Personally, I would love to see different app stores for the N900, with different levels QA. Ovi Store would imply that it has passed a level of QA that Nokia deems appropriate. A non-gratis maemo.org repository would have different QA implications, and a third party app store would have yet another set of implications about QA. I do think your comments help. As I've been saying, I think it is very important to think about how the N900 and maemo exist in a broader mobile device ecosphere. I think the discussion about how we understand and QA mauku provides a great opportunity to look at the bigger picture. Aldon -Original Message- From: eop...@gmail.com [mailto:eop...@gmail.com]on Behalf Of Edward Page Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:31 AM To: Aldon Hynes Cc: maemo-developers@maemo.org Subject: Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free? I can't speak for Marius but I can say that in the (hardcore) Linux world Free has generally meant libre rather than gratis, except where specifically stated. I hope that the quotes and a parenthetical qualifier for that judging statement show that I am not implying anything good or bad about people who do or do not know the distinguishment. This can be viewed as such a common assumption that when we talk about free and non-free we mistakenly make the assumption that everyone knows which definition we are using. This might come up more frequently as Maemo grows from being mostly used by Linux geeks. Please reread Marius' email in that context. I do not think there is malice in his words. As for the value in switching from libre to gratis... Maemo was based on a desktop distribution called Debian which has a strong Free Software (libre) culture. This is where the tradition of free and non-free repos comes from. Personally I think switching from the repos meaning libre to gratis would add as much confusion as they do now because of Maemo's history. I'm not too sure what would be the point of a non-free (non-gratis) repository as I doubt maemo.org is going to open up an app store and be a means of for-profit distribution especially on Nokia's dime in competition to Ovi. Besides historical reasons in distinguishing free (libre) and non-free (non-libre), I would think it it would mostly matter to community members and mean zilch to end-users. I know there has been discussion of a different QA process for non-free (non-libre) due to its nature but I stopped following the QA process discussions and do not know what the resolution was. I would imagine it would make a big difference to Mer as it would represent packages that the community could auto-rebuild for other architectures or crowd-source if any porting effort was needed. I hope this helped in someway. Ed Page (epage) ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
RE: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
to, 2010-01-28 kello 10:51 -0500, Aldon Hynes kirjoitti: [clip] I do not see any intended malice in Marius' email and I do not mean to pick on him. However, I am very concerned that much of the tone here may drive away mobile phone application developers that are not Linux evangelists. I think that would be unfortunate. I would like to see the N900 and its descendents as dominant devices in the smartphone market. To do so, we need to think about how we relate to all developers. The main question here is probably whether the 'free' and 'non-free' repositories (sub-repositories?) have the same service level: autobuilder and QA mainly. If they do, then I don't think there is an argument why Maemo couldn't apply the same policies as Debian or Fedora vs. free/non-free content. The developer should just pick the correct choice when submitting the app. Anyway, the main point seems to be controlling the license situation in the Maemo repository -- the licenses of the applications are not shown anywhere in the package metadata. For developers and some users this would be interesting information to have. Would it make sense for maemo.org to have non-gratis repositories? Personally, I think there is value to this. One of the complaints about Apple is the way they control their App Store. Unless you jailbreak your iPhone, you need to run apps from the App Store, which is a pain to get apps into and gives Apple complete control over what gets run on non-jailbroke phones. Non-gratis software requires that someone organizes the payment and content distribution channels. Nokia as a big company obviously is in a position to do so, but I'm not sure what maemo.org with its (if I understand correctly) mainly volunteer work force can do here. -- Pauli Virtanen ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
RE: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Pauli: Establishing clear service levels for repositories and sub-repositories wrt autobuilder and QA : +1 Showing license information in package metadata: +1 As to handling payments for non-gratis software, there was a good discussion about adding Donate x$ recently. In the old days of PC Shareware, it was not uncommon for developers to distribute software that either asked for a donation, or required some sort of payment to become fully functional. These payment mechanisms were not dependent on the distribution mechanisms. Aldon -Original Message- From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [mailto:maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org]on Behalf Of Pauli Virtanen Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:52 PM To: maemo-developers@maemo.org Subject: RE: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free? to, 2010-01-28 kello 10:51 -0500, Aldon Hynes kirjoitti: [clip] I do not see any intended malice in Marius' email and I do not mean to pick on him. However, I am very concerned that much of the tone here may drive away mobile phone application developers that are not Linux evangelists. I think that would be unfortunate. I would like to see the N900 and its descendents as dominant devices in the smartphone market. To do so, we need to think about how we relate to all developers. The main question here is probably whether the 'free' and 'non-free' repositories (sub-repositories?) have the same service level: autobuilder and QA mainly. If they do, then I don't think there is an argument why Maemo couldn't apply the same policies as Debian or Fedora vs. free/non-free content. The developer should just pick the correct choice when submitting the app. Anyway, the main point seems to be controlling the license situation in the Maemo repository -- the licenses of the applications are not shown anywhere in the package metadata. For developers and some users this would be interesting information to have. Would it make sense for maemo.org to have non-gratis repositories? Personally, I think there is value to this. One of the complaints about Apple is the way they control their App Store. Unless you jailbreak your iPhone, you need to run apps from the App Store, which is a pain to get apps into and gives Apple complete control over what gets run on non-jailbroke phones. Non-gratis software requires that someone organizes the payment and content distribution channels. Nokia as a big company obviously is in a position to do so, but I'm not sure what maemo.org with its (if I understand correctly) mainly volunteer work force can do here. -- Pauli Virtanen ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 15:25 -0300, Eduardo Lima (Etrunko) wrote: For non-gratis or paid applications, the right channel in my point of view would be the Ovi store. the problem there is that as a prerequisite to uploading to OVI, you need to establish some kind of legal entity. Maybe not an actual company, but something similar, which in the US at least required a non-trivial financial investment and had tax implications. This made iFart style apps not likely to make it to Ovi as it would cost the developer more money to upload to ovi then they would ever get back from selling their app. Nokia promised to review the situation, but did not promise to actually change the requirement. See http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=34783 and http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=34661 for full details. It also might have been discussed on this list. Joseph Charpak jchar...@worldnet.att.net ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
On 26/01/2010 21:13, Graham Cobb wrote: As a member of the Council I would say that we need to somewhere make it clear that by uploading a source package to maemo.org, you are giving maemo.org a licence to redistribute that source and the binaries built from it (and that you assert you have the right to give such a licence). Shall we add that to http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras? What if people upload stuff don't have the right to give maemo.org that licence? If they aren't the copyright holder, there's no way they can give that right if it's not already allowed. Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Hi, On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Ryan Abel rabe...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Henrik Hedberg wrote: Ryan Abel wrote: On Jan 26, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Henrik Hedberg wrote: Jeremiah Foster wrote: Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it looks pretty closed. ... What should we do here? Move this to non-free? I am very aware of the meaning free here. Mauku was uploaded into the free section because there was (is) no non-free repository in Extras. However, the community insisted to close all external repositories and use Extras instead (done that). In addition, Ovi Store was not (is not, it is still beta) available for distribution channel. http://repository.maemo.org/extras/pool/fremantle/non-free/ Thanks, I know. But as I said, [t]here have not been any discussion, announcements or instructions how to really handle QA in the non-free section. Thus, the non-free section in Extras does not officially exists. There is only procedures how to upload it into extras-devel. Er, yeah, as far as I'm aware the process is very nearly the same. . . . I'm inclined to believe that you should probably seek to enlighten your opinions with more fact before spreading them around. The process it the same, the packages end up in the same queue, for example some of FMS's emulators are in the non-free section and they were tested and promoted to Extras. If you need some help feel free to ask. Best regards, -- Valério Valério http://www.valeriovalerio.org ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
On 01/27/2010 09:54 AM, ext Ryan Abel wrote: On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Henrik Hedberg wrote: Thanks, I know. But as I said, [t]here have not been any discussion, announcements or instructions how to really handle QA in the non-free section. Thus, the non-free section in Extras does not officially exists. There is only procedures how to upload it into extras-devel. Er, yeah, as far as I'm aware the process is very nearly the same. . . . I'm inclined to believe that you should probably seek to enlighten your opinions with more fact before spreading them around. Well, such misunderstandings are likely to be caused by the poor extras instructions. Which exact page should Henrik read to get enlightened? ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Hi, On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Riku Voipio riku.voi...@nokia.com wrote: On 01/27/2010 09:54 AM, ext Ryan Abel wrote: On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Henrik Hedberg wrote: Thanks, I know. But as I said, [t]here have not been any discussion, announcements or instructions how to really handle QA in the non-free section. Thus, the non-free section in Extras does not officially exists. There is only procedures how to upload it into extras-devel. Er, yeah, as far as I'm aware the process is very nearly the same. . . . I'm inclined to believe that you should probably seek to enlighten your opinions with more fact before spreading them around. Well, such misunderstandings are likely to be caused by the poor extras instructions. Which exact page should Henrik read to get enlightened? http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_extras Improvements welcome. Best regards, -- Valério Valério http://www.valeriovalerio.org ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Hi, Riku Voipio wrote: Well, such misunderstandings are likely to be caused by the poor extras instructions. Which exact page should Henrik read to get enlightened? David King I are working on improving these. Having not gone through the process myself, I need help. Your questions are great, because they help me identify the questions I need to ask get answered. For the current best information on uploading to extras, there are: http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_extras and http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras right now. Cheers, Dave. -- maemo.org docsmaster Email: dne...@maemo.org Jabber: bo...@jabber.org ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
RE: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
I am sorry that you wish to stop discourse. While there are some in the free software movement that hold to various definitions of what 'free' means as well as many different licenses that people argue about, to most people buying cellphones, those discussions are meaningless. When most people attempt to load an application on a cellphone, they are concerned with a much different definition of 'free'. Do they have to pay money to download the application or not. maemo developers are welcome to hold to a religious view of what 'free' means. In doing so, they may condemn the most open cellphone out there (with the exception of the FreeRunner which seems to be dying off), to the same obscurity of the Freerunner. I strongly encourage the maemo community to think more seriously about how it talks about things like free software in a manner that fits with the broader world. I would hope that repositories that refer to 'free' or 'not-free' fit more closely the common usage of those words amoungst all cell phone users, and not just those that belong to some specific software movement. My two cents. Aldon -Original Message- From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [mailto:maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org]on Behalf Of Mikhail Gusarov Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 11:01 PM To: maemo-developers@maemo.org Subject: Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free? Twas brillig at 14:18:26 26.01.2010 UTC-05 when aldon.hy...@orient-lodge.com did gyre and gimble: AH Software can be free, but not open source. (e.g. anyone can download the AH software, but they can't download the source) AH Software can be Open Source, but not free (This is rare, but can happen. AH You have to pay for a license to run the software, but you can view the AH source used to create it) Stop it. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd -- http://fossarchy.blogspot.com/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
ext Aldon Hynes aldon.hy...@orient-lodge.com writes: While there are some in the free software movement that hold to various definitions of what 'free' means as well as many different licenses that people argue about, to most people buying cellphones, those discussions are meaningless. In the context of this discussion, however, people know what they mean with free. You are not contributing by bringing up the age old confusion that others create about the term. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Regarding definitions of free vs non-free in Extras regard: http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras#About_Extras quote: Extras is split into two areas: * free applications are Open Source have been through the Maemo Extras vetting process * non-free applications are usually closed, binary only and their quality and security must be taken on trust This points to open source, not free software, which can mean either: * Loose definition of open source, which would mean everything with a open source that autobuilder can build from source code. And non-free being binary packages it can't/uploader doesn't want to reveal source code. or * The Open Source Definition , http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php (most likely) If we base seperation on OSD, then yes, it would go into non-free. If we base it on the first, then it can stay in free. It does have a buildable source package, so. Can someone find further discussion of what how seperation is supposed to be like? Maybe a worthwhile discussion for Council to get into as well, this particular license does say you are not allowed to redistribute the Mauku source code from maemo.org (or anywhere). My personal view would be seperating it at OSD definition as history shows us we might have to watch out for what software we distribute from maemo.org as it opens the community to CD's. Regards, Carsten Munk/Stskeeps maemo.org distmaster 2010/1/26 Jeremiah Foster jerem...@jeremiahfoster.com: Hello, Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it looks pretty closed. https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7505 I installed mauku from the maemo extras free repository, believing it was Free Software, but trying to figure out which license it is under, I noticed there is no license file at all, and file headers have the following message: /* Mauku 2.0 (c) Henrik Hedberg hhedb...@innologies.fi You are NOT allowed to modify or redistribute the source code. */ The debian/copyright file also says this: Mauku 2.0 is NOT open source software. You are NOT allowed to modify or redistribute the source code. I believe it should at least be moved to the non-free section, and stop claiming it ships with a free license in its download page. What should we do here? Move this to non-free? Thanks, Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
RE: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Personally, I believe that a proper distinction between free and open source needs to be made. Software can be free, but not open source. (e.g. anyone can download the software, but they can't download the source) Software can be Open Source, but not free (This is rare, but can happen. You have to pay for a license to run the software, but you can view the source used to create it) Sofware can be both Open Source and Free (the best of both worlds) or Software can be neither free, nor open source, (the worst of both worlds; proprietary software) My two cents. -Original Message- From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [mailto:maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org]on Behalf Of Carsten Munk Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:30 PM To: maemo-developers@maemo.org Subject: Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free? Regarding definitions of free vs non-free in Extras regard: http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras#About_Extras quote: Extras is split into two areas: * free applications are Open Source have been through the Maemo Extras vetting process * non-free applications are usually closed, binary only and their quality and security must be taken on trust This points to open source, not free software, which can mean either: * Loose definition of open source, which would mean everything with a open source that autobuilder can build from source code. And non-free being binary packages it can't/uploader doesn't want to reveal source code. or * The Open Source Definition , http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php (most likely) If we base seperation on OSD, then yes, it would go into non-free. If we base it on the first, then it can stay in free. It does have a buildable source package, so. Can someone find further discussion of what how seperation is supposed to be like? Maybe a worthwhile discussion for Council to get into as well, this particular license does say you are not allowed to redistribute the Mauku source code from maemo.org (or anywhere). My personal view would be seperating it at OSD definition as history shows us we might have to watch out for what software we distribute from maemo.org as it opens the community to CD's. Regards, Carsten Munk/Stskeeps maemo.org distmaster 2010/1/26 Jeremiah Foster jerem...@jeremiahfoster.com: Hello, Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it looks pretty closed. https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7505 I installed mauku from the maemo extras free repository, believing it was Free Software, but trying to figure out which license it is under, I noticed there is no license file at all, and file headers have the following message: /* Mauku 2.0 (c) Henrik Hedberg hhedb...@innologies.fi You are NOT allowed to modify or redistribute the source code. */ The debian/copyright file also says this: Mauku 2.0 is NOT open source software. You are NOT allowed to modify or redistribute the source code. I believe it should at least be moved to the non-free section, and stop claiming it ships with a free license in its download page. What should we do here? Move this to non-free? Thanks, Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
On Tuesday 26 January 2010 19:30:25 Carsten Munk wrote: Maybe a worthwhile discussion for Council to get into as well, this particular license does say you are not allowed to redistribute the Mauku source code from maemo.org (or anywhere). As a member of the Council I would say that we need to somewhere make it clear that by uploading a source package to maemo.org, you are giving maemo.org a licence to redistribute that source and the binaries built from it (and that you assert you have the right to give such a licence). Shall we add that to http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras? That would protect maemo.org but does nothing to stop non-free software going into free. My personal view would be seperating it at OSD definition as history shows us we might have to watch out for what software we distribute from maemo.org as it opens the community to CD's. As a member of the community, my view is that we should clearly adopt one of the standard definitions of open source. I don't particularly care whether we adopt the OSD or some other definition. For practical reasons (as we are based on Debian) I would suggest adopting the Debian DFSG as defined by the Debian Social Contract and operated by the Debian project. In practice that is identical to OSD I believe but it would mean we can rely on the debian-legal determinations when they exist (and, in particular, we can re-use anything from Debian's free section). Graham ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
2010/1/26 Graham Cobb g+...@cobb.uk.net: As a member of the community, my view is that we should clearly adopt one of the standard definitions of open source. I don't particularly care whether we adopt the OSD or some other definition. For practical reasons (as we are based on Debian) I would suggest adopting the Debian DFSG as defined by the Debian Social Contract and operated by the Debian project. In practice that is identical to OSD I believe but it would mean we can rely on the debian-legal determinations when they exist (and, in particular, we can re-use anything from Debian's free section). Agreed, one problem with OSD would be that it doesn't cover CC licensed materials or non-software - we do have themes, artwork and so on that are CC. On a sidenote, we have themes that are CC SA 2.5 (due to license of template from Fremantle), which would fail the DFSG definition and not being admittable to extras free in such a situation. Regards, Carsten Munk maemo.org distmaster ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Jeremiah Foster wrote: Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it looks pretty closed. ... What should we do here? Move this to non-free? Mauku 2.0 is not free as open source software (Mauku 0.x was under GPL). It is mainly based on Microfeed library written by me and licensed under LGPL, but the application itself is not licensed under any OSI compliant license. I am very aware of the meaning free here. Mauku was uploaded into the free section because there was (is) no non-free repository in Extras. However, the community insisted to close all external repositories and use Extras instead (done that). In addition, Ovi Store was not (is not, it is still beta) available for distribution channel. Last time I saw someone mentioning something about the non-free section in Extras, there were opinions that (some?) members of the community do not want to spend their time doing QA for non-free software. As far as I know, that was the end of the discussion. There have not been any discussion, announcements or instructions how to really handle QA in the non-free section. My opinion is that QA in the non-free section should work as it is working in the free section currently. In most cases, testers are doing their work without really reviewing the source code. The same criteria could be applied for non-free software. If there are community members wanting to support and use non-free software in their devices, they should be given a change to do that. My humble intention was to provide my software for Maemo users (and maemo.org members) through the channel they are aware and in a way that should cause least problems. Feel free to remove it (completely, please, in that case) or move to non-free section in Extras (not in extras-devel or extras-testing) and provide a guidance how to upgrade it later. Naturally, the latter is better. BR, Henrik (author of Mauku) P.S. I have been very busy lately, and I have had to make decisions how to spend my time. Unfortunately, the confusion and unreadiness of Maemo (and maemo.org) software distribution channels was one reason why I have dropped the priority of Mauku project. Those essential building blocks should be in good shape in order to attract developers (both open source and commercial), but unfortunately that is not the case here now. I really hope things will be get better... -- Henrik Hedberg - http://www.henrikhedberg.net/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Carsten Munk wrote: 2010/1/26 Graham Cobb g+...@cobb.uk.net: As a member of the community, my view is that we should clearly adopt one of the standard definitions of open source. I don't particularly care whether we adopt the OSD or some other definition. For practical reasons (as we are based on Debian) I would suggest adopting the Debian DFSG as defined by the Debian Social Contract and operated by the Debian project. In practice that is identical to OSD I believe but it would mean we can rely on the debian-legal determinations when they exist (and, in particular, we can re-use anything from Debian's free section). Agreed, one problem with OSD would be that it doesn't cover CC licensed materials or non-software - we do have themes, artwork and so on that are CC. On a sidenote, we have themes that are CC SA 2.5 (due to license of template from Fremantle), which would fail the DFSG definition and not being admittable to extras free in such a situation. If they are not free, they should not be in free section. Otherwise, why is that section called free? -- Matan Ziv-Av. ma...@svgalib.org ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
On Jan 26, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Henrik Hedberg wrote: Jeremiah Foster wrote: Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it looks pretty closed. ... What should we do here? Move this to non-free? I am very aware of the meaning free here. Mauku was uploaded into the free section because there was (is) no non-free repository in Extras. However, the community insisted to close all external repositories and use Extras instead (done that). In addition, Ovi Store was not (is not, it is still beta) available for distribution channel. http://repository.maemo.org/extras/pool/fremantle/non-free/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
2010/1/26 Ryan Abel rabe...@gmail.com: On Jan 26, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Henrik Hedberg wrote: Jeremiah Foster wrote: Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it looks pretty closed. ... What should we do here? Move this to non-free? I am very aware of the meaning free here. Mauku was uploaded into the free section because there was (is) no non-free repository in Extras. However, the community insisted to close all external repositories and use Extras instead (done that). In addition, Ovi Store was not (is not, it is still beta) available for distribution channel. http://repository.maemo.org/extras/pool/fremantle/non-free/ Thus Mauku should go here, how? The microfeed engine should stay in the free section. -- anidel Sent from London, Eng, United Kingdom ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Aniello Del Sorbo ani...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/26 Ryan Abel rabe...@gmail.com: On Jan 26, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Henrik Hedberg wrote: Jeremiah Foster wrote: Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it looks pretty closed. ... What should we do here? Move this to non-free? I am very aware of the meaning free here. Mauku was uploaded into the free section because there was (is) no non-free repository in Extras. However, the community insisted to close all external repositories and use Extras instead (done that). In addition, Ovi Store was not (is not, it is still beta) available for distribution channel. http://repository.maemo.org/extras/pool/fremantle/non-free/ Thus Mauku should go here, how? The microfeed engine should stay in the free section. Back in the days when Canola source code was not available I used to generate the binary packages using -b option of dpkg-buildpackage(1). It will then generate only binary files (.deb) and the proper .changes file. To upload to extras non-free, you must use dput and edit /etc/dput.cf accordingly, as described in http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_Extras#.22non-free.22_packages. Don't know the current status of the non-free queue for Fremantle. It used to work back in the days of Gregale/Bora/Chinook/Diablo. Best Regards, Etrunko. -- Eduardo de Barros Lima INdT - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia ebl...@gmail.com ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
On Tuesday 26 January 2010 21:07:57 Henrik Hedberg wrote: Mauku 2.0 is not free as open source software (Mauku 0.x was under GPL). It is mainly based on Microfeed library written by me and licensed under LGPL, but the application itself is not licensed under any OSI compliant license. Mauku needs to move out of free. As the Microfeed library is LGPL it can stay in free -- of course, you could choose to remove it if you wish but, also, any other community member could choose to add it back if they wished. For that reason, I would ask you to leave it in free. My opinion is that QA in the non-free section should work as it is working in the free section currently. In most cases, testers are doing their work without really reviewing the source code. The same criteria could be applied for non-free software. If there are community members wanting to support and use non-free software in their devices, they should be given a change to do that. I think you are right: non-free should have an extras-testing as well as extras, and it should have the same promotion process for moving apps from extras-testing to extras. As you say, that would depend on there being sufficient community members interested in non-free to give apps the necessary votes. The difference would be that source packages are not required and that binary packages are loaded directly into extras-testing non-free (not from extras-devel, and not using an autobuilder). Unfortunately, this is unlikely to make it to the top of the priority list for the maemo.org team for a while as non-free is not a major priority. Personally, although I usually limit myself to free software, I have no problem with non-free apps for those who want them and see them as increasing the appeal of the device so I would like to make sure the infrastructure exists to support them. But I still think this is unlikely to be available soon. My suggestion is that, for now, entry into extras non-free is handled on an ad-hoc basis, without a QA process. My suggested process is that entry is requested by the author on this list. There may be some discussion (for example asking what testing has been performed or whether any community members can vouch for the quality or the author). If, after allowing a short time for any discussion, the council (as community representatives) agree to the entry then the packages are manually moved into the repository by one of the repository maintainers. This process obviously favours packages from known community members and is not ideal but might work in the short term. In this particular case, the application is well known and is currently in extras so I see no problem with moving it immediately into extras non-free. For updates, we would use the temporary process I outline above. Graham ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Twas brillig at 14:18:26 26.01.2010 UTC-05 when aldon.hy...@orient-lodge.com did gyre and gimble: AH Software can be free, but not open source. (e.g. anyone can download the AH software, but they can't download the source) AH Software can be Open Source, but not free (This is rare, but can happen. AH You have to pay for a license to run the software, but you can view the AH source used to create it) Stop it. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd -- http://fossarchy.blogspot.com/ pgpv2FTcS10cR.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Ryan Abel wrote: On Jan 26, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Henrik Hedberg wrote: Jeremiah Foster wrote: Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it looks pretty closed. ... What should we do here? Move this to non-free? I am very aware of the meaning free here. Mauku was uploaded into the free section because there was (is) no non-free repository in Extras. However, the community insisted to close all external repositories and use Extras instead (done that). In addition, Ovi Store was not (is not, it is still beta) available for distribution channel. http://repository.maemo.org/extras/pool/fremantle/non-free/ Thanks, I know. But as I said, [t]here have not been any discussion, announcements or instructions how to really handle QA in the non-free section. Thus, the non-free section in Extras does not officially exists. There is only procedures how to upload it into extras-devel. BR, Henrik -- Henrik Hedberg - http://www.henrikhedberg.net/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
Eduardo Lima (Etrunko) wrote: To upload to extras non-free, you must use dput and edit /etc/dput.cf accordingly, as described in http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_Extras#.22non-free.22_packages. Don't know the current status of the non-free queue for Fremantle. It used to work back in the days of Gregale/Bora/Chinook/Diablo. The problem is in the non-free queue actually. As I said, [t]here have not been any discussion, announcements or instructions how to really handle QA in the non-free section. Thus, the non-free section in Extras does not officially exists. There is only procedures how to upload software into extras-devel. (Am I repeating myself?) * * * To bring something new also: I think maemo-developers is not right place to discuss about individual applications. As the interest in Maemo increases, there will be more and more subscribers and traffic in this list. But as this is actually about the non-free section in Extras and QA, the discussion is valuable. BR, Henrik -- Henrik Hedberg - http://www.henrikhedberg.net/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?
On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Henrik Hedberg wrote: Ryan Abel wrote: On Jan 26, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Henrik Hedberg wrote: Jeremiah Foster wrote: Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it looks pretty closed. ... What should we do here? Move this to non-free? I am very aware of the meaning free here. Mauku was uploaded into the free section because there was (is) no non-free repository in Extras. However, the community insisted to close all external repositories and use Extras instead (done that). In addition, Ovi Store was not (is not, it is still beta) available for distribution channel. http://repository.maemo.org/extras/pool/fremantle/non-free/ Thanks, I know. But as I said, [t]here have not been any discussion, announcements or instructions how to really handle QA in the non-free section. Thus, the non-free section in Extras does not officially exists. There is only procedures how to upload it into extras-devel. Er, yeah, as far as I'm aware the process is very nearly the same. . . . I'm inclined to believe that you should probably seek to enlighten your opinions with more fact before spreading them around. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
