<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Steven ** wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:abaa3a210802141255qef0b937m260b335f4a799db3@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The article says "Anyone hoping to create new applications for
competing proprietary programs from Microsoft Corp., Palm Inc.,
Research in Motion Ltd. or Nokia Corp.'s Symbian must pay licensing
fees."
</pre>
</blockquote>
First off, this aspect of the story isn't even accurate. I'm not aware
that third-party application developers need to pay anybody anything to
write such applications for Windows Mobile- or for Symbian-based
systems (whether the Series 60 ones from Nokia or the UIQ ones from
Sony-Ericsson). They most certainly don't pay licensing fees to write
applications for Garnet OS, which powers Palm devices (and which is a
product of ACCESS), and they never have. I don't know about RIM devices.<br>
<br>
This writer is confused between, on the one hand, commercial license
fees for applications developers, and, on the other, the license fees
which device manufacturers (such as Palm, Nokia, HTC, etc.) pay to
operating system vendors (like ACCESS, Symbian, and Microsoft,
respectively) to make the units they sell which use those operating
systems. (Palm actually bought a perpetual license to Garnet from us a
while back, so they don't have to pay us licensing fees any more, as it
happens.)<br>
<br>
This is substantially different than, for example, the situation with
Qt and Trolltech, where application developers <i>do </i>have to get
a commercial license (for about US$2,000) from Trolltech if they want
to make applications which they will sell rather than give away (which
they can do under GPL 3 terms at this point). This is possible because,
while Qt is indeed open source, Trolltech holds the copyright and can
dictate commercial terms regardless of its status as "free" (as in
speech, not as in beer) software.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:abaa3a210802141255qef0b937m260b335f4a799db3@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So, I'd say it doesn't relate to OpenMoko. OpenMoko is truly an open
platform that you can develop for without restrictions and without
paying anything. "LiMo" seems to me to be some big companies grabbing
on to what they believe to be this great new buzz-word: Linux.</pre>
</blockquote>
I'd say it <i>should </i>relate to OpenMoko. LiMo is about
middleware, things like messaging frameworks, telephony frameworks,
etc., which is an overlap area with OpenMoko, true. On the other hand,
LiMo devices will evidently be using not only the Linux kernel, but
also things like GTK and the like, components which OpenMoko uses as
well. If the companies in LiMo make improvements to GTK, would you
recommend that OpenMoko refuse to look at them on the basis that they
came from "some big companies grabbing on to what they believe to be
this great new buzz-word: Linux"...?<br>
<br>
Seems unreasonable (and unwise) to me. People keep wishing that they
could run the OpenMoko stack (for whatever degree of "runnable") on
devices other than the Neo; they complain about how the carriers "don't
get it" (without necessarily understanding the nature of the global
wireless telecommunications business to any particular degree); the
companies in LiMo represent some of the largest carriers and
manufacturers of cell phones in the world....<br>
<br>
I'd say ignoring them, rather than working to positively engage with
them, will ensure that OpenMoko is relegated to a small number of
hard-to-get devices for "hobbyists", and that the capabilities of
phones coming out of the "big companies" in LiMo will quickly surpass
them; these folks make phones for a living, not for fun. Be as
suspicious as you like, but I'd suggest that's unproductive; LiMo's
published APIs for you to look at, and they seem to be putting out a
lot more information (including some podcasts explaining their view of
what they're doing and the market as they see it), so if you want to
critique 'em, at least you can do it on an informed basis.<br>
<br>
As Harlan Ellison observed, "Everyone's entitled to an <i>educated </i>opinion."<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>