Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

"ext Marcin Juszkiewicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Finally we have the WLAN module and FW, which are again developed under >> NDA and it's quite unlikely that the manufacturer is willing to release >> the source. > > Wlan situation was wrong from beginning - when 770 was released. N8x0 just

Re: dsme, Re: Would like to know the status of (was RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN])

Hello! On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Frantisek Dufka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > nick loeve wrote: >> >> Yep, I have been reading the archives and have compiled a shortlist of >> info based on past discussions (mainly that you have started! ). I >> guess I might start documenting what is known

Searching informations (was Re: dsme, Re: Would like to know the status of (was RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]))

> Thats a great site for searching the archives BTW, thanks! Allow me another plug for "tabletSearch": This is a Google Custom Search Engine (CSE) that I put up and maintain. It allows specific searches for Maemo/NIT-related

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Sarah Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you asking for more examples of non-kernel code that we can't modify? > > Unless I just haven't found them, there's also no way to build the dsp > gstreamer plugins (lack of osso-dsp-headers-rx-44.) It is possible to bui

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

(Excuse me, many of you saw the follow-ups to this mail earlier, but I posted from an unsubscribed address, so resending for posterity) Hi Simon, Simon Pickering wrote: >> What about a short term plan with common objectives: >> >> - Raise in a structured way the topics that matter to you >> whe

Re: dsme, Re: Would like to know the status of (was RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN])

Frantisek Dufka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As for bme and figuring out how battery charging works, one could strace > it and see what tahvo/retu register it uses, I did this once for the 770 (by modding the kernel, same basic results). There are some undocumented RETU and TAHVO ports that co

Re: dsme, Re: Would like to know the status of (was RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN])

nick loeve wrote: > Yep, I have been reading the archives and have compiled a shortlist of > info based on past discussions (mainly that you have started! ). I > guess I might start documenting what is known already and try and get > it all in one place. Yes, please do if you can. I am guilty of n

Re: dsme, Re: Would like to know the status of (was RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN])

Hi! On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Frantisek Dufka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > nick loeve wrote: >> >> 2. Is it possible to at least get some basic documentation of what bme >> and dsme are doing (beyond obvious basics)? > > There is a lot of info. Search list archives for dsme (or bme) > http:/

dsme, Re: Would like to know the status of (was RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN])

nick loeve wrote: > 2. Is it possible to at least get some basic documentation of what bme > and dsme are doing (beyond obvious basics)? There is a lot of info. Search list archives for dsme (or bme) http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/maemo/ If you still have some specific question not answered

Re: Would like to know the status of (was RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN])

Hello, On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 12:18 +0100, ext Simon Pickering wrote: ... > 4. AGPS - Assisted GPS [6]. We have an AGPS chip in the N8x0, it doesn't use > the assistance feature. Is this being worked on? This is something we as the > community could do some work on, if we had some sort of API to al

Re: Would like to know the status of (was RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN])

Hi! On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Simon Pickering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Dave, > >> Let's use this list as a template, then. Can people identify very >> specific things (and please, assume I don't know what the >> acronyms mean, >> and don't know the history behind the issues ;) and I'l

Re: Would like to know the status of (was RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN])

On May 7, 2008, at 14:18, Simon Pickering wrote: > 1. DSP SBC task - In the roadmap there used to be (what I > interpreted as) > mention of implementing a DSP task to handle encoding audio for A2DP > use > (where A2DP stands for Advanced Audio Distribution Protocol and is a > Bluetooth protoco

Would like to know the status of (was RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN])

Hi Dave, > Let's use this list as a template, then. Can people identify very > specific things (and please, assume I don't know what the > acronyms mean, > and don't know the history behind the issues ;) and I'll get > started on > a wiki page? Okay, I'll get started then: 1. DSP SBC task - In

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

ext Dave Neary wrote: > We could do this in a wiki page, or we could put creating a > brainstorm-type site in the TODO list for May, and use that. We discussed this possibility at https://garage.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo2midgard-discussion/2008-April/000258.html > In the short term, a mailing

RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

> About silence, in fact a lot of it has not to do with confidentiality > but lack of priority (or too many top priorities in the hands > of us able > to respond). Sounds promising :) > What about a short term plan with common objectives: > > - Raise in a structured way the topics that matter

RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Thanks for the discussion and the many good ideas. About silence, in fact a lot of it has not to do with confidentiality but lack of priority (or too many top priorities in the hands of us able to respond). What about a short term plan with common objectives: - Raise in a structured way the topic

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Are you asking for more examples of non-kernel code that we can't modify? Unless I just haven't found them, there's also no way to build the dsp gstreamer plugins (lack of osso-dsp-headers-rx-44.) I filed a bug related to the behavior of these plugins, and I don't know enough to be certain the

RE: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

> > A possible interim solution is to use one like nVidia has used for years > > for their closed video card drivers. Provide a binary object that > > implements all the core functionality of the chip, with a public API. > > Then have an open source kernel module wrapper that calls the funcions

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Dnia Tuesday, 6 of May 2008, Eero Tamminen napisał: > Hi, > > ext Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > > Can community also demand informations how to make non-maemo systems > > working on tablets? What if I would like to run XFCE on 770 or > > Qtopia? > > I'm not sure whether they are available for 770, bu

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Igor Stoppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Till here you are not really providing much of a proposal for getting > things done, just generic complaints that historically are proven to not > work. Hello Igor and others, >From reading this thread I have the feeling

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Hi, ext Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > Can community also demand informations how to make non-maemo systems > working on tablets? What if I would like to run XFCE on 770 or Qtopia? I'm not sure whether they are available for 770, but at least I've seen posts about somebody compiling them to N8x0.

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 22:30 +0200, ext Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > Dnia Saturday 03 of May 2008, Igor Stoppa (Nokia) napisał: > > > Sadly the padlock (and i'm not denying that there is one) is around > > some of the most boring or crufty stuff, not really on the family > > jewels. > > The padlock

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Dnia Saturday 03 of May 2008, Igor Stoppa (Nokia) napisał: > Sadly the padlock (and i'm not denying that there is one) is around > some of the most boring or crufty stuff, not really on the family > jewels. The padlock is on many things which got limited just because no one took a moment to disc

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Dnia Monday 05 of May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > unfortunately the closed part (umac.ko) is full kernel module not > > linkable object file so it too depends on kernel version and sadly > > even specific kernel configuration > > So close, and yet so far away.

Re: Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

pdate: Tuesday, 02 October 2007--- On Mon, 5/5/08, Raphaël Jacquot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:From: Raphaël Jacquot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: maemo-developers@maemo.or

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Hi Andrew, Andrew Flegg wrote: > On the back of my post, "maemo.org: what next?"[1], it was interesting > to read in yesterday's LWN that the community around OpenSolaris feels > very much shut out of internal Sun development processes: > > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/280452/8f5b64d861d8f79

Re: Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

, Raphaël Jacquot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:From: Raphaël Jacquot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: maemo-developers@maemo.org, "Luca Olivetti" <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 17:22 +, Darius Jack wrote: > ... > sorry > (cut for clarity) > > I the meantime I was contacted and learneed that offered software > was opensource (no GNU Open Sourrce licence included). > Unfortunately software - firmware for Wifi Access Points > is offered hardware ke

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> A possible interim solution is to use one like nVidia has used for years >> for their closed video card drivers. Provide a binary object that >> implements all the core functionality of the chip, with a public API. >> Then have an open source kernel module wrapper tha

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > A possible interim solution is to use one like nVidia has used for years > for their closed video card drivers. Provide a binary object that > implements all the core functionality of the chip, with a public API. > Then have an open source kernel module wrapper that cal

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Igor Stoppa wrote: > -serial console: > that can be obtained with some hacking by attaching a level shifter and > a serial connector to the serial pads exposed, it would be enough to > release schematic and layout (although i think there are already > unofficial howtos) For 770 those pin are know

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

> Hi Ed, > good to see you still around here! I'm always lurking. :) > On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 11:20 -0500, ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Hans J. Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Am Sat, 03 May 2008 20:53:53 +0300 >> >> schrieb Igor Stoppa <[EM

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Hi Ed, good to see you still around here! On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 11:20 -0500, ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Hans J. Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Am Sat, 03 May 2008 20:53:53 +0300 > >> schrieb Igor Stoppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >>> > I dis

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

> Hi, > > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Hans J. Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Am Sat, 03 May 2008 20:53:53 +0300 >> schrieb Igor Stoppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> > I disagree. Any closed part in a Linux system forces developers to >>> > implement stupid wrappers and workarounds somewhere.

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Hi, On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Hans J. Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Sat, 03 May 2008 20:53:53 +0300 > schrieb Igor Stoppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > I disagree. Any closed part in a Linux system forces developers to >> > implement stupid wrappers and workarounds somewhere. If I'm for

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Am Sat, 03 May 2008 20:53:53 +0300 schrieb Igor Stoppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I disagree. Any closed part in a Linux system forces developers to > > implement stupid wrappers and workarounds somewhere. If I'm forced > > to use a certain kernel or glibc version, it's not an open system. > > Prob

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Hi, On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 19:58 +0200, ext Hans J. Koch wrote: > Am Sat, 03 May 2008 17:47:08 +0300 > schrieb Igor Stoppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi Igor, > > > > > In the end I think what would be realistically possible - and i'm > > already completely sure that many won't be satisfied and wil

Re: Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

manufacturer of any such embedded hardware.Darius--- On Sat, 3/5/08, Ryan Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:From: Ryan Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: maemo-develope

Re: Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

her <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Saturday, 3 May, 2008, 7:38 PMOn Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Darius Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> I would like to know your

Re: Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Darius Jack wrote: > ... > sorry > (cut for clarity) > > I the meantime I was contacted and learneed that offered software > was opensource (no GNU Open Sourrce licence included). > Unfortunately software - firmware for Wifi Access Points > is offered hardware key locked > from the following web pa

Opensource locked by hardware key was Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

...sorry(cut for clarity)I the meantime I was contacted and learneed that offered softwarewas opensource (no GNU Open Sourrce licence included).Unfortunately software - firmware for Wifi Access Pointsis offered hardware key lockedfrom the following web pagehttp://approsoftware.com/I would like to k

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

El Sat, 03 May 2008 17:47:08 +0300 Igor Stoppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > TI has opened some of the latest and greatest HW but afaik nothing is > going on regarding older products. We have been asking them to release > it since we shipped 770. > So much for the "Nokia can exert more pressure

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

...(cut for clarity)One simple question referring to your thread.There is a number of manufacturers of WIFI acceess points running subset of Linux commands/ kernel.There is a company X offering some upgrade reflashing Wifi AP OS , showing new features.New flash shows no GNU Open Source Licence, no

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 10:00 -0400, ext Ian Lawrence wrote: > It is like that game of 'pass the parcel' you play as kids when you > unwrap a layer of a present when the music stops. It does not matter > how interesting each layer is (Hildon Input Framework etc) if the > final layer has a padlock ar

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

> The funny thing is that steps in the right direction like opening up > the hildon input framework and HE > where not pick up that well(IMHO...).This while we have screamed (and > thus decided that is was important) thing to do. > What you are saying that there is no path in between. we need

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Ian Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My own *personal* opinion is that we either need to be open or not. If > open, then open, let us root around in the guts of the source and let > go. If closed. close it and put the beast out of its misery. My fear > is th

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Hi, > On the back of my post, "maemo.org: what next?"[1], it was interesting > to read in yesterday's LWN that the community around OpenSolaris feels > very much shut out of internal Sun development processes: I am seeing a lot of discussions around this at the moment. I really like this post ht

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Kees Jongenburger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Andrew, I found your post very interesting. Thank you :-) > The moost apealing idea I find is the community maintained hackkers edition. > did the maemo people do anything wrong in that aspect? I think so. For

Re: Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Hello Andrew, I found your post very interesting. The moost apealing idea I find is the community maintained hackkers edition. did the maemo people do anything wrong in that aspect? I don't really see what there is to learn from what SUN is doing. What I see is a platform that has grown and that I

Corporate ownership of open source projects [LWN]

Hi, On the back of my post, "maemo.org: what next?"[1], it was interesting to read in yesterday's LWN that the community around OpenSolaris feels very much shut out of internal Sun development processes: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/280452/8f5b64d861d8f79e/ Reading this, it was very strikin