On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Kalle Vahlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/8/14 Jack Wootton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I think perhaps this depends on how you choose to categorise what has >> (not) happened to the s60 webkit port. I choose to view it at a >> company granularity, here's why: It is the same company, the same >> legal entity, the same policies, same guidelines, same work ethics >> etc. > > If you actually believe that, you probably don't know the big > corporate world too well.
I know it pretty well. I know it well enough to understand that most multinationals try extremely hard to standardise corporate processes, tools, methods and approaches. Multinationals really do expend a lot of time and effort in standardisation of many areas of said organisation. > >> While you no doubt feel it counter productive to tackle the s60 >> webkit issues now, and it may be so in the short time, I have little >> doubt that it will be just as counter productive long term, if they >> are ignored. >> >> For a quick gain from Nokia, you are advocating Nokia's behaviour >> toward the open source community who wish to use s60 webkit. You are >> communicating that it is OK for Nokia to leave a mainline broken for a >> year, to provide little documentation, almost zero community support >> and absolutely no communication regarding future development. > > It's not really uncommon that the original author of an open source > project leaves it. I know I've done it. Nobody has approached me by > claimimg that I was somehow obligated to continue maintenance, let > alone prohibiting me from contributing to another project because of > it! Indeed, I would agree, leaving development is fine. No one expects projects to continue for ever and certainly no one expects the original authors to maintain code. Not only is this impractical, it isn't how open source works. However, Nokia failed to even mention that the s60 webkit port is dead, no announcement, no support, defunct websites left to rot, code lines left broken for a year, no communication, not even a forum postto say 'hey, don't bother trying to do anything with s60 webkit right now". It is the nature in which Nokia went about leaving the s60 port to die with NO communication about their intentions. They just ignored it. I spent significant time finding out that the s60 port was dead, emailing different people, finding out why website were no longer maintained, hitting a wall of silence with Nokia, dead inks that should have lead to documentation. > > I'm not saying Nokia has handled the S60 port well (I've heard > otherwise), but certainly they are within their rights in not > maintaing open sourced code[1]. Blackmailing them with empty threats > about unrelated contributions is hardly going to buy you better > support in any case... Er..., blackmailing? Who said anything about blackmailing? Could you point out where any blackmailing occurred? Er..., threats? Who said anything about threats? Could you point out where any threats occurred? I think you've got a little carried away here. > > [1] That's why the license says: 'THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED [...] "AS > IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES [...]' > > -- > Kalle Vahlman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Powered by http://movial.fi > Interesting stuff at http://syslog.movial.fi > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > -- Regards Jack _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
