• Intro
• Downloads
• Community
• Development
• News
• TALK

User talk:Amigadave

Latest revision as of 10:00, 4 May 2012

I am the author of much of the content of the N900 hardware pages.

I have been in the process of editing these pages into a coherent whole, and systematically adding links to the rest of the wiki, as well as originating new content when I see gaps, based on the kernel, documentation, and other sources.

Many of the newer pages are admittedly stubs, which I was planning on fixing today.

Unfortunately, your bulk move of pages has made this task much harder, as I now cannot simply type a remembered page title. A separate name-space - N900 Hardware* was chosen for a reason.

There were existing pages that may conflict with some items, and for some items, a separate page for the software side of the problem makes sense.

As I am planning to add significantly more content in the near future, and this move makes that process harder, can you please revert the moves.

If you feel that there is a strong case why the pages must be moved, can this be postponed for a month or two, while I get them into a state where I will not be constantly adding new crossreferences that I have to look up.

Thanks. --speedevil 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, sorry for treading on your changes, that was unintentional. However, I made sure to leave the old page names as redirects to the new locations, so you should be able to use the same link destinations without a problem. I tidied away links to the old pages to ensure no problems if the pages got moved again (double redirects, for example). I was using Contributing to the wiki#Style as my guide, which suggests to use sentence capitalization for page titles, so I was both fixing the capitalization and knocking the ’hardware’ off where it made sense, which is not uniformly the case, as you pointed out.

I do not mind holding off on the page moves for a while, if you feel that it would be easier, and I would be happy to go through your additions and fix any links and other minor things now or once you are finished. I look forward to your contributions! -- amigadave 08:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete "N900 Bluetooth DUN Client" — Preceding unsigned comment added by matan 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There were several reasons:

1. The information was too complicated compared to the existing Bluetooth DUN page
2. The instructions suggested that a user should download binaries (that would be difficult to verify) from an external server
3. The page was orphaned and so could not be easily found from within the wiki

I am happy to add a redirect, if the URL is found on an external page where the URL cannot be changed. — amigadave 19:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The operation is complicated.
2. So?
3. Is that a reason to delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by matan 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The current Bluetooth DUN page is simple compared to the complex instructions that were on N900 Bluetooth DUN Client. The deleted page was simply adding noise
2. The source code of packages in Extras can be downloaded to verify that the package is not malware or worse. A tarball containing only binaries cannot be easily verified in this way, not to mention the licensing problems of distributing binaries built from Linux kernel source code without an accompanying license or offer of source code
3. If the page was not linked from anywhere within the wiki, then it must have been quite difficult to find for potential users

These reasons, taken together, provide good justification for deleting the page. — amigadave 09:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The instructions on the page "Bluetooth DUN" are for BT DUN SERVER on N900. They have absolutely nothing to do with the page you deleted, which is about BT DUN CLIENT on N900.
2. The page Easy_Debian also suggests "that a user should download binaries (that would be difficult to verify) from an external server". And there are many other such pages.
3. The page was linked from t.m.o. Is the wiki some kind of standalone?
4. Please undelete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by matan 22:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1. OK, but this was quite unclear from the content of both pages, and could have been mentioned at the start of the discussion. I have updated the Bluetooth DUN page to reflect that the package currently in Extras is for a DUN server only
2. Then Easy Debian is also violating the GPL and potentially other licenses that are used on a Debian installation, and links to the binary images should also be removed. If there are other instances of this on the wiki, then please let me know. However, this does not fix the licensing problem with the Bluetooth DUN client kernel modules (on the deleted page). Maybe it would be possible to make a small package containing the necessary kernel modules and upload it to Extras? I would certainly like to help, if you think that this would be useful.
3. It is difficult to check whether a wiki page is used from outside the wiki, but as I said in my first response, I would be happy to add a redirect if the page was accessed from an external resource, such as talk.maemo.org. I have now added the redirect.
4. The page content should not be restored until the licensing problems are fixed. Providing the license (GPL-2 for the kernel modules?) together with the binaries, and a link to the source code should be sufficient, although a package for Extras would be even better. — amigadave 09:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

1. It is not a GPL violation to link to a binary without linking to the source in the same page. See for example Nokia's firmware download page, as well as millions of others pages. Source for everything that was linked in that page is available, but it has no place what is essentially a HOWTO page.
2. Please undelete the page, and either correct what you think needs correction, or ask for correction's in the page's discussion page. That is proper wiki course of action. Deleting a page without a warning and without a valid reason is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by matan 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1. According to section 3 of the GPL 2 (which is the license for the Linux kernel modules that were linked from the offending page), a binary built from GPL 2 source code must either come with the sources, a written offer of the sources or the same offer as was present in an existing GPL 2 binary distribution. Offering source code from the same page is explicitly mentioned in Section 3 as ‘distribution of the source code’, which would comply with requirements of the GPL 2. Nokia binary images come with a written offer of source code (in the ‘About product’ applet of the Settings application), thus fulfilling the requirements of the GPL 2 and other open source licenses.
2. The page should not be undeleted until the binaries linked from it are corrected so as to comply with the GPL 2. The reasoning is valid and I have explained it to you in detail the requirements of the license and how you might correct the problem. In short, supply the license along with the binaries and provide a written offer of the source code. I reiterate my offer to help in making a package that could be uploaded to Extras, fixing all of these problems. — amigadave 09:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Please delete the following pages immediately for GPL violations:
   • Mer/Releases/0.16
   • Mer/Releases/0.15testing9
   • Mer/Releases/0.15testing6
   • Mer/Releases/0.14testing7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by matan 12:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The packages that you linked to contain an Ubuntu-derived operating system, which in /etc/motd.tail explains where to locate the license files for each included package. The copyright files included in the packages give the location of the source code, for example ./usr/share/doc/bash/copyright. Thus, there is no GPL violation. Please do not make unfounded claims. — amigadave 13:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi amiga, regarding https://wiki.maemo.org/index.php?title=KDE_on_scratchbox_for_maemo_5&diff=31075&oldid=30681 I have to say the article is much more to read now and I no longer find my way through it. Can you revert? --tstaerk 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi tstaerk!

I do not understand what you mean. I removed the scratchbox installation instructions as they already exist on the wiki, in the article that I linked to. The installation page is long, but it covers many different distributions, and also installation of scratchbox on x86-64, which was claimed to not work by the information that I removed. A lot of the other information was not relevant because there are now packages available, so compiling the software manually is not necessary.

The article as it stands is a lot shorter than before, but links to other documentation. I think that it is better to not duplicate this information, but keep it in a central place and up-to-date.

A simple revert would add back the incorrect and redundant information, but if there was anything specific that you think I missed out, please add it, or let me know and I will be happy to update the page. — amigadave 10:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)