=============
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Quim Gil <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 04/17/2012 01:31 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
>
> From a legal point of view Nokia and non-Nokia binaries are two totally
> different categories since Nokia cannot grant any permissions for the
> latter on its own.
> [...]
> I expect convincing legal teams in other companies under the same arguments
> to be even more complicated.

---- robert bauer <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thanks for the lists.  Sure, if it turns out there are 3rd party binaries
>needed for an OBS target, then let's pause the process and discuss the
>situation.

I agree if 3rd party binaries are involved we should pause to examine the 
possible impact.

One thing I want to keep in mind though, is that Nokia already has _some_ kind 
of agreement in place to redistribute these 3rd party binaries to end users as 
part of the existing SDK.  Those agreements _may_ in fact already allow for 
what's being asked, which could mean no further input or discussions would be 
required with that/those 3rd parties.

Having worked in the field, I can tell you that it's likely that Nokia lawyers 
took the _most_ restrictive component policy (which may in fact have been for a 
Nokia component) and blanket applied that to _everything_ for simplicity sake.  
If the components that triggered the hosting policy are not in the sub-set 
needed for OBS, we may be able to ask for that sub-set to be specifically 
called out with a slightly less strict policy.  So even if there are 3rd party 
bits, it may not require additional input from them if the existing contracts, 
for that sub-set, are open enough.

In a nutshell: The mere existence of a single 3rd party element shouldn't 
automatically trigger a derailment the idea.

We definitely need to determine exactly what's needed though, and identify if 
(or how many) 3rd parties are involved.  I suspect it will be at most two or 
three, which could still merit a request of a quick re-examine of the existing 
terms to see if this is doable without changing anything with the 3rd parties. 
That feedback may also inform us of what structure could be used to do this 
without changing those terms (eg. would forming a legal entity to host them 
even be a legally viable alternative.)

Also, let's not forget this tech is aging.  Some components may have already 
been opened up more by the vendors themselves.  Some vendors may be willing to 
open part of their older tech in ways they wouldn't have several years ago.

-Woody(14619)
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community

Reply via email to