[maemo-developers] ... and QA of closed source applications?

[From: Quim Gil]

Hi,

ext Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>>the reality is that there  
>> are
>> even more opportunities to get very good software for the devices if  
>> we
>> allow also non-free software to be a part of our community supported
>> extras repository.
> 
> Do you have some examples? I am sure you are right, I just would like  
> to know which apps.

I don't think maemo.org should block or even judge developers willing to
distribute their closed software free of charge.If it does, then they
will find another way and if the apps are good users will be on their
side, asking what is our problem.

Besides, maemo.org extras has got (always?) a non-free branch. So what
would be the reason to change now.


>>> - Don't bring conflicts in dependencies.
> 
> How do we know they are not violating the GPL if they rely on GPL'd  
> libraries but don't ship their source? Those 'dependencies' may  
> require them to ship the source, that is a major conflict.

The fact is, we don't know. But it's fair to apply the concept of habeas
corpus and presume that people is innocent by default. We can make the
developer tick a box saying that it is their responsibility to respect
the licenses of the software used. If someone finds a way to demonstrate
that then files a major bug and we demote the app.

See http://maemo.org/legal/terms_of_use/ for a complex hint on that.


> There are some problems still. For example, will Nokia face a patent  
> lawsuit if it ships software which violates patents? How do you know  
> the software does not violate patents if you do not have the source?
> 
> Quim, could you explain Nokia's position on patented software in  
> closed applications available for Maemo? Are they cognizant that even  
> with a disclaimer they may be subject to a patent lawsuit like the  
> recent TomTom case? In most cases patents only bring uncertainty and  
> risk, this is why having the source code matters.

I don't think open or closed source brings any difference when it comes
to infringe patents. Nokia is 100% liable of whatever is pre-installed
in the devices sold. But Nokia is most probably 0% liable in software
from third parties installed by users at their own will and risk, as
explained in the disclaimer users get when installing that software.

http://maemo.org/legal/terms_of_use/ talks about IPR, copyrights and
trademark violations as well.

In practice the same "legal checkbox" for the license check could cover
the disclaimer for all these kinds of legal issues.

-- 
Quim Gil
open source advocate
Maemo Software @ Nokia