Symbian bought by Nokia - will be open sourced

[fluteflute]

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/208173/nokia-snaps-up-symbian-and-makes-it-open-source.html

http://fosswire.com/2008/06/24/nokia-buy-symbian-will-release-os-as-open-source/

[madjr]

wow, go Nokia

this confirms that FOSS is not so bad after all :)

now why would any company want to purchase windows mobile licenses ...

lets see m$'s new move


anyway, what's the difference bettween the Eclipse public license (EPL) and the GPL ?

[Mateo]

wow, go Nokia

now why would any company want to purchase windows mobile licenses ...

They actually exist. The open source mobile stuff is exciting, but thus far still vaporware.

[quinnten83]

I have doubts about this due to what a Nokia spokeperson said about open source developers needing to learn toplaynice with businesses and DRM. I don't think Nokia understands open source.

[madjr]

I have doubts about this due to what a Nokia spokeperson said about open source developers needing to learn toplaynice with businesses and DRM. I don't think Nokia understands open source.

it's a start

but a license is a license they have made the switch to a public one

[Mateo]

I have doubts about this due to what a Nokia spokeperson said about open source developers needing to learn toplaynice with businesses and DRM. I don't think Nokia understands open source.

Yeah, with open-source being adopted by mainstream companies, I'm seeing it being used as a buzz word kind of like "green" has become. A vacuous term that means little to nothing.

[zmjjmz]

It's good, Symbian really was dying, and seeing as it already is a viable platform, Open Sourcing it saved it from an atrophic death.
Is Nokia becoming another Sun?

[samjh]

I have doubts about this due to what a Nokia spokeperson said about open source developers needing to learn toplaynice with businesses and DRM. I don't think Nokia understands open source.

No, he understands open source.

The problem is that some open source developers (a lot actually), do not understand - or want to accept - why closed-source products and intellectual property protections are important to business.

If FOSS and businesses are to be effective partners, then there needs to be mutual co-operation, instead of having development dragged into anti-business directions by some factions of developers. That's basically what he was getting at.

[madjr]

No, he understands open source.

The problem is that some open source developers (a lot actually), do not understand - or want to accept - why closed-source products and intellectual property protections are important to business.

If FOSS and businesses are to be effective partners, then there needs to be mutual co-operation, instead of having development dragged into anti-business directions by some factions of developers. That's basically what he was getting at.

agree,

if things keep up even the m$ executives will take notice and not bang us all the time.

what Nokia has done will be listed as 2008's top open source news along with the release of android.

wow, am really getting excited, i would had never had thought of nokia going the open route so fast :)

they "purchased" all the symbian shares just to open it.

this will be like a chain-reaction thing, i wonder what other surprises we'll see.

[Mateo]

No, he understands open source.

The problem is that some open source developers (a lot actually), do not understand - or want to accept - why closed-source products and intellectual property protections are important to business.

If FOSS and businesses are to be effective partners, then there needs to be mutual co-operation, instead of having development dragged into anti-business directions by some factions of developers. That's basically what he was getting at.


Explain to me how open-source DRM protection is possible. Once you figure that one out you might be able to explain square circles as well.

[zmjjmz]

Heh, it won't be out or ready till 2010...
Great, they really stand no chance to Android.

[samjh]

Explain to me how open-source DRM protection is possible. Once you figure that one out you might be able to explain square circles as well.There is no need to explain.

Fact is, DRM is here, it is extremely unlikely to go away, no matter how much we kick and scream about it. So if the FOSS community want to enjoy DRM'ed content, then it needs to do what everyone else is legally required to do: buy the appropriate licenses to use DRM technology, and then plug it into FOSS projects as closed-source modules.

Can't do it? Too bad then. Businesses won't bat an eyelid, because 99.9% of media consumers will have licensed software or hardware to use DRM'ed media.

As much a fan as I am of the FOSS ideology, one needs to be realistic.

[Methuselah]

I'm sorry, I'll do without.
Somebody has to have a spine.

DRM is not here to stay regardless of what we do.
It's here because we accept the unreasonable restrictions on the fair use of products we've bought.
Are we forgetting they very people DRM proponents are waging war against are the ones they want to peddle their encumbered wares to?
In fact, DRM-free media has become a bit of a marketing selling point as people get fed up with lack of control over their purchases.

DRM and open source/free software is simply incompatible.
DRM depends on obfuscation, lack of transparency and inbuilt deficiencies in software/hardware.
FLOSS is built on diametrically opposed principles.

DRM blobs floating about in the kernel will be less welcome than driver blobs for similar technical reasons.
But at least driver blobs attempt to make things work. DRM blobs expend processing power to stop functions from working.

'Defective by Design': No thanks.
Not in a free operating system.

[samjh]

That is your stand.

It also happens to be my own position on the matter of DRM.

However, if the FOSS community wishes to get cosy with businesses with respect to DRM and IP rights, then a middle-ground has to be established.

[Methuselah]

However, if the FOSS community wishes to get cosy with businesses with respect to DRM and IP rights, then a middle-ground has to be established.


But there can be no compromise there.
It's one thing to have a proprietary program.
It's quite another to have proprietary modules that disables other functionality.
Let's face it, this is not a community that'd tolerate that.

Free software was born in protest against such restrictions.
Getting cozy with businesses is really not the priority.

[madjr]

Explain to me how open-source DRM protection is possible. Once you figure that one out you might be able to explain square circles as well.


this depends on the consumer, not the OS

if you don't consume DRM'ed media/material then good for you.


remember that "Free Software" and "free Media" is not the same.

if you want all the free media, get a hook and an eye patch. HAAARRR!

[arsenic23]

this depends on the consumer, not the OS

if you don't consume DRM'ed media/material then good for you.


remember that "Free Software" and "free Media" is not the same.

if you want free media, get a hook and an eye patch. HAAARRR!

I don't think its the 'free' part people are talking about. It's the fact there is, and can be, nothing 'open' about any DRM solution.

[madjr]

I don't think its the 'free' part people are talking about. It's the fact there is, and can be, nothing 'open' about any DRM solution.

i don't know what you mean ? :confused:

if i wanted Drm-free music i would get them from amazon instead of Apple iTunes

in the end is what the consumer wants

[frup]

This isn't about Amazon or iTunes when it comes to Nokia. Since the bit about DRM a week or two ago I have been thinking about this on and off and how it relates to phones.

The only real space I can think of that currently applies is how phones do not allow you to copy games you buy to another phone. I initially about about 5 games, some costing up to $10 of my credit when these games first came available in New Zealand. Quickly I stopped buying the games because when I upgraded my phone, I was expected to buy the games all over again. A license works far better on a computer where you can keep it reasonably for 5 years or more but I know few people who have phones more than 2 years old.

I see why they may want the DRM, especially if they are licensing out the SDK's or something, but again, that does not work with the open model.

The DRM on the games turned me away as a customer, I probably would have bought far more games by now, especially if I could transfer them to SD card so I could have more than my phones limited memory. I love Tetris etc and they are perfect games while bored in public spaces.

The open/proprietary middle ground is a confusing thing. Currently how Ubuntu uses video drivers is odd enough, having DRM makes things so much more confusing. Especially when the blob gets reverse engineered and essentially disabled. What a waste of development hours for something that drives away legitimate customers and forces more people to consider piracy.

[kripkenstein]

I think this is good news for open source, but not a great move for Linux and Qt in particular.

It's good for open source because, well, Symbian will be open-sourced :) It further validates the FOSS model.

However, the EPL is not compatible with the GPL. So us Linux people won't be able to easily use code from there. We might be able to do so for projects that aren't GPLed, but this won't help the kernel, for example.

Another downside for Linux is this means more competition for mobile Linux (Google's Android, Moblin, even OpenMoko).

For Qt, this isn't good because it dispels any hopes of Qt being a big part of Nokia's plans. Clearly Nokia intends to push Symbian instead. Yes, Qt might eventually run on Symbian (it's possible), but Nokia is going to work hard to push the Symbian platform, not Qt. Also, since Nokia owns Qt it can now work less hard on Qt's mobile aspects, since they might benefit competing mobile platforms.

[foxy123]

I wonder if we'll see better Linux support for Nokia phones? PC suite and samba application are what I would like to see.