Council Meeting
Re: Council Meeting
Re: Council Meeting
2012-04-15 18:40 UTC
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM, <quim.gil@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> > 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> > (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> > autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> > requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.
>
> The current setup works in this sense, right? What are the actual concerns
> or risks?
>
> A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal entity.
> That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems to be a
> source of inspiration of this proposal -
> http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
>
> "maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo
> community is not a legal entity.
>
>
> You can have a "copyleft" type license that is not with another legal
entity. Also, what is the agreement with apps.formeego.org for Nokia
binaries? Are they are a legal entity?
Please also read the logs for the two community OBS meetings. The current
working presumption is that there will be a separate legal entity for the
community OBS.
Rob
>
> > 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> > (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> > autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> > requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.
>
> The current setup works in this sense, right? What are the actual concerns
> or risks?
>
> A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal entity.
> That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems to be a
> source of inspiration of this proposal -
> http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
>
> "maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo
> community is not a legal entity.
>
>
> You can have a "copyleft" type license that is not with another legal
entity. Also, what is the agreement with apps.formeego.org for Nokia
binaries? Are they are a legal entity?
Please also read the logs for the two community OBS meetings. The current
working presumption is that there will be a separate legal entity for the
community OBS.
Rob
Re: Council Meeting
2012-04-16 13:23 UTC
On nie 15 kwi 2012 16:21:38 CEST, Andrew Flegg <andrew@bleb.org> wrote:
> On 15 April 2012 15:03, robert bauer <nybauer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil@nokia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is not much to discuss about the licenses that make Maemo since
> > > Nokia has no intention to touch that now.
> >
> > Not surprising but disappointing nonetheless.
>
> There seem to be three distinct things being discussed, and I'm not
> sure everyone is on the same page (this is an observation, and it
> could be that *I've* got entirely the wrong end of the stick):
>
> 1) Create a self-governing, non-profit legal entity for maemo.org. It
> is unclear (to me), what this would accomplish.
>
> 2) Relicense Maemo under a "Qt style licence". This would _appear_ to
> be asking Nokia to open up source code they've said they haven't got
> the staff or motivation to do.
>
> 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> requires formalising something permanently which is already
> happening.
>
> > > Whatever it is, I believe we can progress better moving this to a TMO
> > > discussion instead of IRC.
> >
> > Many people don't think the forum is a good place to get things done.
> > I tend to agree.
>
> I would suggest that an IRC meeting is useful after initial
> brainstorming/scene setting so that any specifics can be discussed.
> However, to get people roughly aligned would be better done via the
> mailing lists (the quoting and threading opportunties are better than
> TMO for this, I think, but as long as there's a core conversation in a
> single place, that's fine).
>
> HTH,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
>
+1 to option 3, at least AFAIU. Option 1 is totally different thing, that doesn't seem suitable right now, and may be or may not be suitable in future (and most likely, couldn't be limited to Maemo only).
So, from my side, it's now all about option 3.
/Estel.
> On 15 April 2012 15:03, robert bauer <nybauer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil@nokia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is not much to discuss about the licenses that make Maemo since
> > > Nokia has no intention to touch that now.
> >
> > Not surprising but disappointing nonetheless.
>
> There seem to be three distinct things being discussed, and I'm not
> sure everyone is on the same page (this is an observation, and it
> could be that *I've* got entirely the wrong end of the stick):
>
> 1) Create a self-governing, non-profit legal entity for maemo.org. It
> is unclear (to me), what this would accomplish.
>
> 2) Relicense Maemo under a "Qt style licence". This would _appear_ to
> be asking Nokia to open up source code they've said they haven't got
> the staff or motivation to do.
>
> 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> requires formalising something permanently which is already
> happening.
>
> > > Whatever it is, I believe we can progress better moving this to a TMO
> > > discussion instead of IRC.
> >
> > Many people don't think the forum is a good place to get things done.
> > I tend to agree.
>
> I would suggest that an IRC meeting is useful after initial
> brainstorming/scene setting so that any specifics can be discussed.
> However, to get people roughly aligned would be better done via the
> mailing lists (the quoting and threading opportunties are better than
> TMO for this, I think, but as long as there's a core conversation in a
> single place, that's fine).
>
> HTH,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
>
+1 to option 3, at least AFAIU. Option 1 is totally different thing, that doesn't seem suitable right now, and may be or may not be suitable in future (and most likely, couldn't be limited to Maemo only).
So, from my side, it's now all about option 3.
/Estel.
RE: Council Meeting
2012-04-16 13:27 UTC
On nie 15 kwi 2012 18:53:15 CEST, quim.gil@nokia.com wrote:
>
> > 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> > (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> > autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> > requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.
>
> The current setup works in this sense, right? What are the actual
> concerns or risks?
>
> A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal
> entity. That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems
> to be a source of inspiration of this proposal -
> http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
>
> "maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo
> community is not a legal entity.
>
> > Many people don't think the forum is a good place to get things done.
> > I tend to agree.
>
> Fine, my point was to avoid starting discussion from zero on IRC. Glad
> to see the discussion getting fine tuned here.
>
> --
> Quim
No problem to become one (legal entity). Yet, as for risk - as You know better than us, times are hard for Nokia, and today's promises may not be valid tommorow. No one got FCKN clue who will be Nokia's "executives" in half year time, *if* there will be a Nokia still (no offense/provocation here), or if it's going to see supporting us via providing Nokia's binaries (and using them in build process) as a priority worth to keep it.
All after all, we would like to be "insured" - it doesn't hurt either side, yep?
/Estel
>
> > 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org to ship Nokia binaries
> > (e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in
> > autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and
> > requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.
>
> The current setup works in this sense, right? What are the actual
> concerns or risks?
>
> A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal
> entity. That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems
> to be a source of inspiration of this proposal -
> http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
>
> "maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo
> community is not a legal entity.
>
> > Many people don't think the forum is a good place to get things done.
> > I tend to agree.
>
> Fine, my point was to avoid starting discussion from zero on IRC. Glad
> to see the discussion getting fine tuned here.
>
> --
> Quim
No problem to become one (legal entity). Yet, as for risk - as You know better than us, times are hard for Nokia, and today's promises may not be valid tommorow. No one got FCKN clue who will be Nokia's "executives" in half year time, *if* there will be a Nokia still (no offense/provocation here), or if it's going to see supporting us via providing Nokia's binaries (and using them in build process) as a priority worth to keep it.
All after all, we would like to be "insured" - it doesn't hurt either side, yep?
/Estel
Re: Council Meeting
2012-04-16 19:13 UTC
Hi,
If the main motivation for all this is still the fear of Nokia (or its
budget) vanishing tomorrow then allow me to insist on the 'take it easy'
approach. Sure, let's continue this discussion but not under some
abstract pressure and urgency.
On 04/15/2012 11:36 AM, ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
>> Nokia
>> could also just publish a licence available to anyone who follows certain
>> rules (e.g. no derived works, proper acreditation, non-commercial, or whatever
>> rules Nokia wants -- not necessarily a CC licence but along similar lines).
>
> Or even more restrictive such as (OTTOMH), "for the building of
> software for, and use with, Nokia devices originally shipped with
> Maemo".
Understood. What software components would be covered by this license?
Are we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo & MeeGo
Harmattan targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?
About the builders, we need to know exactly what we have both in terms
of software used and agreements made. Matti is away this week. Maybe
that agreement is already enough to keep what it's there. In any case
the discussion of moving targets to COBS (or maemo.org OBS) is relevant,
maybe we can assure whatever needs to be assured since a new Harmattan
target will need to be created?
About http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1157882&postcount=710 - is
there anything still to be answered? If so, what is the question today?
--
Quim
If the main motivation for all this is still the fear of Nokia (or its
budget) vanishing tomorrow then allow me to insist on the 'take it easy'
approach. Sure, let's continue this discussion but not under some
abstract pressure and urgency.
On 04/15/2012 11:36 AM, ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
>> Nokia
>> could also just publish a licence available to anyone who follows certain
>> rules (e.g. no derived works, proper acreditation, non-commercial, or whatever
>> rules Nokia wants -- not necessarily a CC licence but along similar lines).
>
> Or even more restrictive such as (OTTOMH), "for the building of
> software for, and use with, Nokia devices originally shipped with
> Maemo".
Understood. What software components would be covered by this license?
Are we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo & MeeGo
Harmattan targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?
About the builders, we need to know exactly what we have both in terms
of software used and agreements made. Matti is away this week. Maybe
that agreement is already enough to keep what it's there. In any case
the discussion of moving targets to COBS (or maemo.org OBS) is relevant,
maybe we can assure whatever needs to be assured since a new Harmattan
target will need to be created?
About http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1157882&postcount=710 - is
there anything still to be answered? If so, what is the question today?
--
Quim
Re: Council Meeting
2012-04-16 21:08 UTC
On 16 April 2012 20:13, Quim Gil <quim.gil@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> Understood. What software components would be covered by this license? Are
> we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo & MeeGo Harmattan
> targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?
At a minimum, AIUI, it's whatever parts of the SDK are needed to keep
the Autobuilder (targetting Chinook, Diablo, Fremantle, Harmattan) or
COBS running.
However, it should also extend to redistributing those parts in the
form of SDKs; and possibly even firmware images.
Graham's summary is a good one to start basing discussions round, I think:
http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/2012-April/005076.html
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
>
> Understood. What software components would be covered by this license? Are
> we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo & MeeGo Harmattan
> targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?
At a minimum, AIUI, it's whatever parts of the SDK are needed to keep
the Autobuilder (targetting Chinook, Diablo, Fremantle, Harmattan) or
COBS running.
However, it should also extend to redistributing those parts in the
form of SDKs; and possibly even firmware images.
Graham's summary is a good one to start basing discussions round, I think:
http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/2012-April/005076.html
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
Re: Council Meeting
2012-04-17 03:12 UTC
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil@nokia.com> wrote:
> About http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1157882&postcount=710 - is
> there anything still to be answered? If so, what is the question today?
>
>
It wouldn't hurt to confirm the quote from March 2011 and, as an example,
that things such as plans to move AFM authentication, OBS and wiki -
http://communitizer.blogspot.com/2012/01/apps-for-meego.html - will be
discussed with community council.
I think the rest can't be answered by words today, and has to be
experienced over a period of time when the community is able to see it has
control over maemo infrastructure. The community OBS seems to be a good
step in the right direction.
Rob
> About http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1157882&postcount=710 - is
> there anything still to be answered? If so, what is the question today?
>
>
It wouldn't hurt to confirm the quote from March 2011 and, as an example,
that things such as plans to move AFM authentication, OBS and wiki -
http://communitizer.blogspot.com/2012/01/apps-for-meego.html - will be
discussed with community council.
I think the rest can't be answered by words today, and has to be
experienced over a period of time when the community is able to see it has
control over maemo infrastructure. The community OBS seems to be a good
step in the right direction.
Rob
Re: Council Meeting
2012-04-17 07:59 UTC
On 17 April 2012 04:12, robert bauer <nybauer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It wouldn't hurt to confirm the quote from March 2011 and, as an example,
> that things such as plans to move AFM authentication, OBS and wiki -
> http://communitizer.blogspot.com/2012/01/apps-for-meego.html - will be
> discussed with community council.
Although you have a good point with the latter, I don't think that's a
thing for Quim/Nokia to specifically comment on. It's between X-Fade,
the folks behind AFM, Nemein and the Community Council; right?
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
>
> It wouldn't hurt to confirm the quote from March 2011 and, as an example,
> that things such as plans to move AFM authentication, OBS and wiki -
> http://communitizer.blogspot.com/2012/01/apps-for-meego.html - will be
> discussed with community council.
Although you have a good point with the latter, I don't think that's a
thing for Quim/Nokia to specifically comment on. It's between X-Fade,
the folks behind AFM, Nemein and the Community Council; right?
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
Re: Council Meeting
2012-04-17 20:31 UTC
On 04/16/2012 02:08 PM, ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On 16 April 2012 20:13, Quim Gil<quim.gil@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Understood. What software components would be covered by this license? Are
>> we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo& MeeGo Harmattan
>> targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?
>
> At a minimum, AIUI, it's whatever parts of the SDK are needed to keep
> the Autobuilder (targetting Chinook, Diablo, Fremantle, Harmattan) or
> COBS running.
I sent a first question to the Nokia legal team and I got a first
answer. They need to know the exact list of packages, with a special
attention of any proprietary binary coming from third parties.
> However, it should also extend to redistributing those parts in the
> form of SDKs; and possibly even firmware images.
Let's try solve the OBS case. If it is solved, then the SDK will be a
direct consequence.
About firmware images, this looks more complicated since 3rd party blobs
are definitely involved there plus a potential collection of
certifications and liabilities (my own guess, "I'm not a layer", etc).
--
Quim
> On 16 April 2012 20:13, Quim Gil<quim.gil@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Understood. What software components would be covered by this license? Are
>> we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo& MeeGo Harmattan
>> targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?
>
> At a minimum, AIUI, it's whatever parts of the SDK are needed to keep
> the Autobuilder (targetting Chinook, Diablo, Fremantle, Harmattan) or
> COBS running.
I sent a first question to the Nokia legal team and I got a first
answer. They need to know the exact list of packages, with a special
attention of any proprietary binary coming from third parties.
> However, it should also extend to redistributing those parts in the
> form of SDKs; and possibly even firmware images.
Let's try solve the OBS case. If it is solved, then the SDK will be a
direct consequence.
About firmware images, this looks more complicated since 3rd party blobs
are definitely involved there plus a potential collection of
certifications and liabilities (my own guess, "I'm not a layer", etc).
--
Quim
Re: Council Meeting
2012-04-18 11:42 UTC
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Quim Gil <quim.gil@nokia.com> wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 02:08 PM, ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
>
>> On 16 April 2012 20:13, Quim Gil<quim.gil@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Understood. What software components would be covered by this license?
>>> Are
>>> we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo& MeeGo Harmattan
>>>
>>> targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?
>>>
>>
>> At a minimum, AIUI, it's whatever parts of the SDK are needed to keep
>> the Autobuilder (targetting Chinook, Diablo, Fremantle, Harmattan) or
>> COBS running.
>>
>
> I sent a first question to the Nokia legal team and I got a first answer.
> They need to know the exact list of packages, with a special attention of
> any proprietary binary coming from third parties.
>
> Thanks. Obviously, it will take some time to get that list together.
However, it should also extend to redistributing those parts in the
> form of SDKs; and possibly even firmware images.
>
Let's try solve the OBS case. If it is solved, then the SDK will be a
> direct consequence.
>
> About firmware images, this looks more complicated since 3rd party blobs
> are definitely involved there plus a potential collection of certifications
> and liabilities (my own guess, "I'm not a layer", etc).
>
>
OK
Rob
> On 04/16/2012 02:08 PM, ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
>
>> On 16 April 2012 20:13, Quim Gil<quim.gil@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Understood. What software components would be covered by this license?
>>> Are
>>> we talking about whatever is needed to keep the Maemo& MeeGo Harmattan
>>>
>>> targets in Extras Autobuilder and COBS or is there something more?
>>>
>>
>> At a minimum, AIUI, it's whatever parts of the SDK are needed to keep
>> the Autobuilder (targetting Chinook, Diablo, Fremantle, Harmattan) or
>> COBS running.
>>
>
> I sent a first question to the Nokia legal team and I got a first answer.
> They need to know the exact list of packages, with a special attention of
> any proprietary binary coming from third parties.
>
> Thanks. Obviously, it will take some time to get that list together.
However, it should also extend to redistributing those parts in the
> form of SDKs; and possibly even firmware images.
>
Let's try solve the OBS case. If it is solved, then the SDK will be a
> direct consequence.
>
> About firmware images, this looks more complicated since 3rd party blobs
> are definitely involved there plus a potential collection of certifications
> and liabilities (my own guess, "I'm not a layer", etc).
>
>
OK
Rob
> On Sunday 15 April 2012 17:53:15 quim.gil@nokia.com wrote:
>
>> A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal entity.
>> That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems to be a
>> source of inspiration of this proposal -
>> http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
>
> IANAL but I don't agree.
Me neither, and thank you Graham for posting what I was going to (but
better put, as ever ;-))
> An agreement with a legal entity *might* be the right answer, but Nokia
> could also just publish a licence available to anyone who follows certain
> rules (e.g. no derived works, proper acreditation, non-commercial, or whatever
> rules Nokia wants -- not necessarily a CC licence but along similar lines).
Or even more restrictive such as (OTTOMH), "for the building of
software for, and use with, Nokia devices originally shipped with
Maemo".
>> "maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo
>> community is not a legal entity.
>
> But a legal entity could be set up if necessary. Personally, I prefer the
> "licence anyone, under certain conditions" approach (not least because it
> could be perpetual, instead of requiring the entity to continue to exist).
Indeed. I'm eager to see the non-legal entity routes exhausted first
as, as you say, there's a continued existence aspect (and, the
corollary, that the entity is pursuing the agenda it was originally
established with) but also that I think it could be a step change in
the amount of work.
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/