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

Task:Mapping openness

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)

Just added it to the tasklist for MAG:Templates. —GeneralAntilles 19:02, 5 June 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)

Having a map of components (and a list whether they are open source or not) will also make it easier to add the keyword "easyfix" to bug reports that could be potential entrypoints for code contributors - marking bug reports of closed-source components as "easyfix" does not make sense. Currently it's not easy to find out whether a specific component is open source or not.--andre 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Get official statement about Nokia's stance towards software freedom

Attempts to make Maemo completely free software appear to be restricted by company guidelines, rules or policies. Still there is no official document describing the relationship in detail. Parts of the community want to have this information. 100 days is a reasonable timeframe to set up an official document answering the following question and provide a rationale for it:

• Is Maemo's goal to be 100% free software (one day)?

I think the simple, and widely publicized, answer here is "No". ;) —generalantilles 16:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above for a short answer. However, 2 things. One is that it would be good to have as an objective for the 100 Days an explanation of Nokia about it's open source strategy with the maemo platform. The other one is that the answer also depends a bit on how we define "maemo". Is it the core platform? Is the whole stack preinstalled in the compatible devices? Something else? As fot today different people have different notions about what is "maemo". The definition is important because, in a wide sense, not even Ubuntu is "100% free software" even if people perceived it like this. Perhaps "defining maemo" should be an objective as well.--qgil 19:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why maemo goal couldn't be being 100% free although that wouldn't be a goal for ITOS (which is based on maemo) or Nokia (a participant and major contributor in maemo) --Eero Tamminen 4th June 2008

This document could then be put onto maemo.org webserver to allow every (prospective) community member to decide on her/his own whether this is acceptable for her/him or not. As an inspiration Bug Labs are providing such a document on their website.

Describe the maemo contributions

There seems to be a perception that maemo is taking a lot from the open source community but not giving much. There is a lot of attention to the closed parts of the platform but it would be useful also to know what are the contributions originated in the maemo platform, either by Nokia or other parties involved. What is the best way to reflect this?

Currently Nokia has http://opensource.nokia.com and the maemo team at Nokia can work improving the related information there. What else would need to be done to get the picture right? --qgil 05:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Freedom to tinker

Since the Internet Tablet device hardware lacks specification for parts of the hardware people have begun tinkering with it to find out how stuff works. However those people do not like to publish their findings because they fear the risk of being sued. The request to Nokia therefore is: Please provide and official document that says that Nokia officially tolerates such works. It is not needed that Nokia endorses or in any way appreciates reverse engineering efforts.

Erm, you want to back this up with something? I think stuff like this would indicate otherwise. —GeneralAntilles 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)