---- Jeremiah Foster <[email protected]> wrote: >1. The source code (which we have since it has a Free Software license.) >2. The name maemo.org (need to secure this from Nokia.) >3. The repos and infrastructure that allow maemo.org to get work done, >includes forums.
Jeremiah, while I agree with a lot of the direction you're indicating, including those around Debian.org, I think you're a little off on some this. Honestly, I don't care if I have to re-point my repo to rhymedwithego.org, as long as it has the _content_, the name is really not super important. It would be *nice* to secure the name, but if that's a deal breaker on Nokia's side, it's not a game-ender on ours. As for source, it's not all open, and that does present a problem. Getting permission to post *unmodified* copies of binary blobs (including fiasco images) is something we'll need to do, and that may not be a trivial effort. Yes, people can archive them on their own for personal use, but hosting them publicly is another matter. I think it's something we really should have on hand at the new "home base" though. Not a game ender, but I think a vital key we should work hard to secure. I'd also like to include in #3 tools that are critical to development, like the autobuilder. I'm sure you had that in mind when crafting it, but that one in particular needs to be called out. I do agree it would be best to find a way to continue (maybe share) funding of the existing homes for these systems, as that would cause the least disturbance. I also like the idea of re-camping it in a new home, including the idea of merging back in (to some degree) with Debian if that's possible. I would like to see both of those options explored. Even if Nokia comes forward tomorrow and says they'll fund it until 2020, the corporate world is unpredictable. Anyone with a Zune or an Audry, or Madden 09 even, knows that corporations can vanish, or just stop service randomly on a whim. It's happened, and while Nokia has historically been very good about giving due notice, there's no guarantees out there. Especially as we approach (pass?) the 1-year mark from the launch in India. Randall Arnold <[email protected]> wrote: >I don't see that sort of verbiage as helping the dialog. I would agree to a limited degree. While I'm not a fan of the "name calling", I think it's an important topic to address. There has been (and continues to be) a strong presence in the forum of pro-MeeGo, anti-Maemo people. The main goal of which seems to be a desire to siphon off developers and mind-share from this project to their own. Their goals are served better if Maemo has this final nail driven into the existing coffin. That's a reality that needs to be clearly on the table when discussing who, how, and when these issues get decided. Those not participating as much in the forums may have missed that, so informing them of that reality here is important. _______________________________________________ maemo-community mailing list [email protected] https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
