Nokia Urges Linux Developers To Be Cool With DRM 536
superglaze writes in to note that according to Nokia's software chief, its plans for open source include getting developers to accept things like DRM, commercial IP rights, and SIM locks. "Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these 'go against the open-source philosophy,' but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. 'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,' he said. 'Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]. These are touchy, emotional issues, but this dialogue is very much needed. As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too.'"
Based on the quotes in the article header, (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Say what?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Emotional? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Say what?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:uh-oh (Score:5, Informative)
Jaaksi's blog (Score:5, Informative)
Re:uh-oh (Score:3, Informative)
Yes we could fork it. But we also could fork it under the BSD license.
Actually the BSD license gives you more options, as you can fork something and turn it into a closed source application. The GPL does deny you that freedom to ensure that derived works stay Open source.
But in this case it doesn't make a difference:
The copyright owner (Trolltech) can always release new, closed-source versions. Unless they include other people's GPL software. The rest of the world can fork the last GPLed version and run with that.
Re:Say what?!? (Score:2, Informative)
"In his speech, Jaaksi detailed some of the lessons Nokia had learned in its work with the Maemo developer community, primarily the need to avoid 'forking' code. He said: "Don't make your own version. The original mistake we made was to take the code to our labs, change it and then release it at the last minute. The community had already gone in a different direction than [us], and no-one was pushing it other than [us]. Everybody wants to make their own version and keep it too close to their chest but that leads to fragmentation."
Re:uh-oh (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Say what?!? (Score:1, Informative)
It stands to reason that if you could fork the project then, you could fork the last available release before the project is closed. Is that not the case here, or are they talking about preventing developers access to devices like Apple? Personally, I say fork Nokia :-) I haven't touched their QT tools, but their S60 carbide.c++ is a dilapidated nightmare of perl scripts, Window's exes, and open source tools all glued together into one monolithic monstrosity. Last I checked, it still didn't support Windows Vista more than a year after release.
Re:Say what?!? (Score:5, Informative)
I hadn't heard of it before, either. Now I'm wondering: what additional power does this agreement give them? Presumably everyone already has the right to fork Qt.
Can't wait to get open source phone... (Score:2, Informative)
Trusted Platform Module (Score:3, Informative)
Nokia Urges Linux Developers to Look Elsewhere (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Say what?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Except people did consider this possibility and Trolltech signed an agreement specifically covering what would happen if they stopped releasing improvements to QT, specifically including cases where they had been acquired by another company. Basically they're bound to release it under the BSD license at that point, so we have a start for a fork just as good as what you mention.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Say what?!? (Score:5, Informative)
But software that is comparable to X is very scarce, which indicates that THAT kind of software just isn't "funny" to do.
If Nokia ever would try to play hardball, I think a community supported version of QT would do just fine - KDE developers would most likely just pick it up, and if noone really wanted to maintain QT, it would simply die and we'd all use GTK instead.
So - I really don't see the same problem as with X.org here.
Re:Say what?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Say what?!? (Score:4, Informative)
Under the agreement, if Trolltech (now Nokia) stop releasing GPL-licensed versions of the Qt library for a period of time, for any reason, the last GPL-licensed release is to be relicensed under a BSD-style license.
In other words, the last GPL-licensed release of Qt will become free for any use, including use in commercial, closed-source software.
With the current GPL / QPL / commercial licensing arrangement, any software developed with Qt either has to be free and open source, or you're required to pay for a commercial license. A fork based on the current Qt would still have that restriction.
I don't know where to begin... (Score:5, Informative)
Second, attempts at implementing DRM are a _terrible_ thing -- because they are just attempts to prevent honest people from exercising their fair use rights, and lock people on carriers, distributors, or platforms. Nothing else. Forget the 'piracy!' screams, it just translates to 'the consumer wants to buy a CD and listen to the same music on his iPod without paying another fee for it' or 'the consumer wants to watch the movie on this DVD... but after, he wants to lend it to a friend, that will watch it and we will not receive any money for it'.
Let Jaksii know how you feel in person... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here's an idea? Want DRM in your product? (Score:2, Informative)
All DRM is easily circumvented. You just loose the HD quality but the pirates still get to see the movie.
Which **AA is paying you? (Score:2, Informative)
Allow me to dispel your delusions here. The purpose of DRM is to take away rights we the public should have and then sell them back to us.
It's no different than circuit city hiring people to break into our homes and steal buttons and remotes for electronic devices we just bought, then call us and offer us these "features" for a price.
hard disk encryption and various other means of protecting your data and system from intruders are NOT drm, they are encryption, the key difference being encryption is used to protect your data from someone else, while DRM is used to protect your data from YOU.
Re:Trusted Platform Module (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Jaaksi's blog (Score:3, Informative)
He's suggesting business and open-source learn each other's way of doing things and meet in the middle. There are competing interests, yes. There always will be.
He's telling us what difficulties business has with open-source and vice-versa from the perspective of a previously all-closed business that wants badly for everyone to work together. This is valuable information, whether we agree with him or not.
Re:Say what?!? (Score:4, Informative)