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

[From: Jeremiah Foster]

On May 6, 2009, at 14:10, Quim Gil wrote:

>>>> - 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.

Habeas corpus is "you have the body" and would seem to support my  
case. :) That is to say, I would want the body of evidence to be  
presented to me before I can make a decision, i.e. the source code.

> 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.

If Nokia feels that is sufficient, and maemo.org feels its sufficient,  
then we should be all set. There should be nothing blocking QA from  
both free and non-free applications as far as I can see.

Jeremiah