<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Andrew Flegg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrew@bleb.org">andrew@bleb.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 15 April 2012 15:03, robert bauer <<a href="mailto:nybauer@gmail.com">nybauer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Quim Gil <<a href="mailto:quim.gil@nokia.com">quim.gil@nokia.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> There is not much to discuss about the licenses that make Maemo since<br>
>> Nokia has no intention to touch that now.<br>
><br>
> Not surprising but disappointing nonetheless.<br>
<br>
</div>There seem to be three distinct things being discussed, and I'm not<br>
sure everyone is on the same page (this is an observation, and it<br>
could be that *I've* got entirely the wrong end of the stick):<br>
<br>
1) Create a self-governing, non-profit legal entity for <a href="http://maemo.org" target="_blank">maemo.org</a>. It is<br>
unclear (to me), what this would accomplish.<br>
<br>
2) Relicense Maemo under a "Qt style licence". This would _appear_ to be<br>
asking Nokia to open up source code they've said they haven't got the<br>
staff or motivation to do.<br>
<br>
3) Get a permanent licence grant for <a href="http://maemo.org" target="_blank">maemo.org</a> to ship Nokia binaries<br>
(e.g. flasher, firmware) and use them in the build process (SDKs in<br>
autobuilder and COBS). This would have practical advantage and<br>
requires formalising something permanently which is already happening.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div>As for the agenda item in the next council meeting, it's 3). <br> <br></div></div><br>