Task:Mapping openness
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | { | + | {{100Days agenda}} |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
Openness is a significant part of what makes maemo so strong, putting together a plan for addressing closed-source components, particularly those directly controlled by Nokia (e.g. low-level stuff like mce and dsme, and user-space stuff like tablet-browser and the task/statusbar applets), would be both a good way to work towards making things that (the community believes, and that Nokia will be convinced of ;)) should be open open and, more generally, addressing the community's concerns over openness in general, particularly the "Why?" of it. | Openness is a significant part of what makes maemo so strong, putting together a plan for addressing closed-source components, particularly those directly controlled by Nokia (e.g. low-level stuff like mce and dsme, and user-space stuff like tablet-browser and the task/statusbar applets), would be both a good way to work towards making things that (the community believes, and that Nokia will be convinced of ;)) should be open open and, more generally, addressing the community's concerns over openness in general, particularly the "Why?" of it. | ||
Revision as of 16:52, 2 June 2008
 |
This article is continued discussion from the maemo.org brainstorm Please see the 100 Days agenda for more. |
Openness is a significant part of what makes maemo so strong, putting together a plan for addressing closed-source components, particularly those directly controlled by Nokia (e.g. low-level stuff like mce and dsme, and user-space stuff like tablet-browser and the task/statusbar applets), would be both a good way to work towards making things that (the community believes, and that Nokia will be convinced of ;)) should be open open and, more generally, addressing the community's concerns over openness in general, particularly the "Why?" of it.
- Perhaps Map openness would be a more accurate description, specially for the 100 Days. Nokia has not the goal of shipping a 100% open source platform. Open source is the recommended approach, but closed source is used when it offers a differentiator, an advantage over competitors. But it is good to get a common understanding on why Nokia is shipping component X as closed source, and answer when possible to requests about opensourcing something.--qgil 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't disagree. The community's end-goal here is greater openness (I don't think anybody but the strongest outliers is really dead-set on 100% open, though), and the first step towards achieving that goal is greater (and more specific) communication on the subject, thus, the mapping. So the title could be a bit misleading from the agenda perspective, but openness is definitely the goal here. —generalantilles 16:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The plan
- Identify all components (a module name isn't enough). Be like GNOME's release set list.
- Identify all closed components in the OS at each layer:
- Initfs/direct hardware access
- Firmware used by kernel modules (Wifi, Bluetooth)
- Low-level system daemons (mce, dsme)
- User-space applications (tablet-browser, applets)
- For each package:
- Outline purpose in a dedicated wiki page.
- Describe the closed-source rationale.
- Will need some form of mediawiki template for such pages --jaffa 22:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Document the process for working towards opening the component, or its specification.
- Ensuring any new closed packages get a wiki page containing their rationale.
- Yes, we can do or at least start something along these lines in the 100 Days. What about getting into details about this plan in a page apart, to keeop the main page clean? (same would apply to the rest of actions taken) Let's also see to the potential starting points i.e. the maemo architecture and the list of packages.--qgil 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)