Nokia Confirms Symbian Is No Longer Open Source 246
theweatherelectric noted an article on the H. From the article "Nokia has confirmed that it has closed the source code for the Symbian smartphone operating system. It says that despite it describing its new model for Symbian smartphone operating system development as 'open and direct' the 'open' part did not refer to 'open source' but to being 'open for business'. The 'open and direct' model is designed, according to Nokia, to 'enable us to continue working with the remaining Japanese OEMs and the relatively small community of platform development collaborators we are already working with.''"
just.. wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I get it.
Some asshole said he was "open"
but he was only open for business
Anyone remember this lyrics segment from one of the OpenBSD release songs (a bonus track)
It's sad that what's a joke one day becomes reality in few years
Re:Why close it now? (Score:5, Insightful)
To ensure that it really dies, instead of some roque developers actually making it an viable option?
Hey assholes ! Error 503 Service Unavailable (Score:2, Insightful)
You gonna fix it this year you think? This has been going on for weeks now. You dirty incompetent fucks.
Re:Stick a Fork in it, its done! (Score:3, Insightful)
Worked at a Symbian-using Japanese Company (Score:4, Insightful)
Fujitsu. Musashi-Nakahara office, actually.
Entire rows of programmers working late overtime, desperately trying to figure out how to get something working in Symbian. It was the most ridiculous thing I ever saw. Even more, in order to get into the office to talk to someone, you need to sign a release that permits you to view the Symbian source.
I'm sure Symbian is a source of income for Nokia, with unimaginative Japanese companies like Hitachi and Fujitsu stumbling over themselves trying to find new ways to get a return on their 10 year "experience investment". God forbid they actually try to build something that Docomo and AU didn't order them to build - the idea of building a phone for the gigantic foreign market never hit them, apparently.
As an side, my supervisor there was a intelligent lady who was chosen out of 400 applicants. Her response when I told her about the iPhone 2g? "Why would anyone use that? Won't it get finger prints all over it?"
Re:just.. wow (Score:1, Insightful)
Some might argue that OpenBSD is more "open" than the GPL is.
The GPL places restrictions and obligations upon you ... the BSD people make no such restrictions. If you want to bundle it up into a project and sell it, go right the hell ahead.
GPL'd software is almost essentially 'emancipated' in that it is now 'libre' ... BSD software is 'free' and 'open', but doesn't have any rights of its own, but I as someone who wants to use it am totally free to do as I please.
There's a reason that people who release under a BSD license are some of the most consistent supporters of fully-open systems ... but it's an ideological difference with the FSF whereby if you can crib some good software to make your software better, we all benefit. In fact, you have our blessing. Even if that means you don't want to give back what you've done with it.
Sometimes I find the whole holier-than-though, libre software is more like the PETA of the software world -- they're much more obsessed with the ideological purity of code.
I applaud people who release code under a BSD license, since it basically says "go forth and write cool shit, you don't owe us anything".
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. And the exec that is making the calls is going to get out with a nice golden parachute and get all his Microsoft Stock Options back, while the people who own Nokia Stock are getting screwed.
Re:just.. wow (Score:5, Insightful)
And those some would be wrong.
More free for the first party that gets the code, much less free for third parties that are given binaries later.
RMS is a zealot on this, it's true. But I applaud people who release GPL code because they are giving everyone the continuing right to learn and to tinker with the fruits of their labour, not just the first party. I also applaud people that release BSD code as it is very generous, but as an end user it is frequently less useful.
I am not free to tinker with my playstation 3, but there is BSD code in there.
Re:just.. wow (Score:2, Insightful)
My stance on the relative difference between GPL and BSD, and when they're comparatively "better" has been fairly established since the late mid-to-late 90s.
I don't care about how you perceive BSD fans nowadays as I'm not the one making those statements. And, I can't tell you how often I see GPL people talking like Communist revolutionaries who are obsessed with the ideology ... "it's more free because it's libre" ... and you guys whine about the Apple people wearing black turtlenecks and doing beat poetry? I've thought RMS was a bit of a crank since I hear him speak in 93.
I've both used BSD code in commercial software and submitted bug-fixes to GPLd code. They each have their place and their application -- I'm in favor of both of them.
That doesn't mean there aren't times when I'm not grateful to be able to take some really useful piece (BerkelyDB, for example) and building something useful with it because it accomplished a lot of the plumbing to build something on top of it without worrying about if I'm legally covered. Or, grab a copy of Linux and set up a server.
I think the notion that there is one "correct" form that "free software" can take is mostly rubbish.
Re:Why close it now? (Score:5, Insightful)
LoB
Re:just.. wow (Score:5, Insightful)
...which is probably what the BSD license is most appropriate for; improving interoperability between ALL types of projects both open and closed source.
GPL pretty much forces closed source to make their own implementations of standards, which may or may not be 100% compatible. LGPL makes it a bit less difficult but BSD (and similar licenses) make it easy for every piece of software to play together nicely.
Idealogically, GPL is like giving a gift and demanding gifts in return, BSD is like giving a gift for the simple joy of making somebody happy with a gift. Neither one is technically better than the other; it's just a matter of personal values.
FWIW, I release code with both BSD and GPL licenses and some others (ZLib/LibPNG, MIT and closed licenses).
Re:Nokia who? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's only because their older phones are practically indestructible. Nokia seems rather determined to be on the way out at the moment.
Re:just.. wow (Score:4, Insightful)
The original code remains free forever. Modifications to that code (i.e. extra work) may or may not be free depending on what the person doing the modifying wants to do
Note that this is independent of the BSD Vs GPL argument. Google has a massive amount of proprietary code in their custom version of Linux, but they don't distribute it so the GPL doesn't kick in.
Last statistics I saw, 90% of programmers were employed on in-house projects that are never intended for distribution. Assuming approximately even productivity, this means that around 90% of code that is written can incorporate GPL'd code without having to be distributed. The only difference between the BSDL and GPL in this context is that the BSDL is simple for anyone to understand, while the GPL needs running past the corporate lawyers (who probably get nervous at at least one of the clauses and reject it).