<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="generator" content="Osso Notes">
<p>On nie 15 kwi 2012 18:53:15 CEST, <a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a> wrote:
<br>> > 3) Get a permanent licence grant for maemo.org 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>> The current setup works in this sense, right? What are the actual
<br>> concerns or risks?
<br>> A legal entity can only make a formal agreement with another legal
<br>> entity. That was/is the case of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which seems
<br>> to be a source of inspiration of this proposal -
<br>> <a href="http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php">http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php</a>
<br>> "maemo.org" is just an Internet domain (owned by Nokia). The Maemo
<br>> community is not a legal entity.
<br>> > Many people don't think the forum is a good place to get things done.
<br>> > I tend to agree.
<br>> Fine, my point was to avoid starting discussion from zero on IRC. Glad
<br>> to see the discussion getting fine tuned here.
<br>No problem to become one (legal entity). Yet, as for risk - as You know better than us, times are hard for Nokia, and today's promises may not be valid tommorow. No one got FCKN clue who will be Nokia's "executives" in half year time, *if* there will be a Nokia still (no offense/provocation here), or if it's going to see supporting us via providing Nokia's binaries (and using them in build process) as a priority worth to keep it.
<br>All after all, we would like to be "insured" - it doesn't hurt either side, yep?