[maemo-community] Council Meeting

[From: Quim Gil]

On 04/17/2012 01:31 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
> 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.

Forgot to say that I asked already Soumya Bijjal and Niels about those 
lists.

A starting point:

Harmattan:
http://harmattan-dev.nokia.com/stable/harmattan/beta3_vs_final_content_comparison.html

Fremantle:
http://repository.maemo.org/stable/fremantle/maemo5.0_update6_vs_maemo5.0_update7_content_comparison.html

Diablo:
http://repository.maemo.org/stable/diablo/4.1.1_vs_4.1.2_content_comparison.html

Chinook:
http://repository.maemo.org/stable/chinook/4.0_vs_4.0.1_content_comparison.html

I have asked them whether all those packages are REQUIRED  for an OBS 
target.

The open source package are irrelevant since they can be "re-hosted" and 
redistributed already now.

Then we have the proprietary packages. All they appear as 'Nokia 
binaries' but in fact some of those my have a non-Nokia copyright. This 
is what Soumya will need to parse i order to find the 3rd party 
proprietary binaries.

 From a legal point of view Nokia and non-Nokia binaries are two totally 
different categories since Nokia cannot grant any permissions for the 
latter on its own.

If there are 3rd party binaries that are required to build OBS targets 
then I will go back to my point of how worth it is to change the current 
situation given that there is no actual risk anybody could point to on 
Nokia pulling hosting & funds for the servers where that software is 
currently hosted. As explained in the IRC meeting, changing the terms 
for the Nokia binaries without a strong business reason is already 
complex. I expect convincing legal teams in other companies under the 
same arguments to be even more complicated.

--
Quim