Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
A toy and a promise from Nokia
Let it not be said that free software projects can't keep secrets: it would
seem that quite a few people in the GNOME community knew that Nokia was
working on a Linux-powered, GNOME-based gadget, but they sure didn't let
![[The 770]](/images/ns/nokia-770.jpg)
the rest of us in on the story. In any case, Nokia has now broken cover
and announced
the (third-quarter) availability of the Nokia 770 Internet
Tablet, a new toy with a great deal of promise. What seems even more
promising, however, is how Nokia is going about the development and
marketing of this device.
The 770 is a 230-gram device with an 800x480 color touchscreen display. It has an ARM processor, 64MB of memory, 128MB of flash for storage and a slot for a 64MB card, a wireless network interface, a Bluetooth interface, a USB connector, and an audio output. Despite being a Nokia product, one thing this device does not have is a cellular phone. It can access the net via its wireless interface, or via a GPRS link over Bluetooth. The software side includes a wide array of free software, starting with a core Linux distribution (said to be Debian-based) and adding in GStreamer, D-BUS, matchbox, GNOME, GTK+, Helix, and more. Interestingly, the 770 is said to contain a version of Webcore with GTK grafted on, and the Opera browser as well. So far, this looks like just another Linux-powered gadget. Nokia has gone beyond that, however, with its creation of maemo, a development environment for the 770 (and its successors). Maemo includes all the source and binary packages needed to create applications for the 770; there is even an apt repository. The development environment allows most work to be done on an x86 system, which should speed the process considerably - and help ensure that applications are available from the first day that the 770 begins shipping. Last week, LWN called for the creation of a truly open media gadget which could be hacked on by its users. We were a little surprised to get a response this quickly. The 770 is not exactly the device we were looking for, but it is a big step in the right direction. In particular, it does, indeed, appear to be a fully open device with full support from its manufacturer for improvements by its users. This openness, combined with (seemingly) nice hardware and rational pricing, could lead to the formation of an enthusiastic developer and user community for the 770. Expect to see a lot of these gadgets at Linux conferences in the near future - starting with GUADEC, where Nokia is expected to have a large delegation and some samples to give away. Meanwhile, some observers have wondered how Nokia is able to square its clear support for free software with its equally clear support for software patents in Europe. Nokia has given a partial answer in the form of this patent statement:
Nokia hereby commits not to assert any of its Patents (as defined
herein below) against any Linux Kernel (as defined herein below)
existing as of 25 May 2005. The aforesaid non-assertion shall
extend to any future Linux Kernel to the extent that Nokia does not
declare any new functionality embodied in such Linux Kernel to be
outside the scope of this Patent Statement.
This "non-assertion" pledge does not apply, however, to anybody who is pushing patent claims against the kernel, meaning that Nokia is leaving open the possibility of using its patents to defend the kernel against an attack from elsewhere. The patent grant falls far short of what the community would like: it applies only to the kernel, and, for future kernels, it only applies as long as Nokia feels like letting it apply. The wording of the statement would seem, even, to exclude most distributor kernels. But, as an overt recognition of the problem and a partial grant, it is at least a step in the right direction. (Log in to post comments)
Patent grant no good Posted May 26, 2005 1:32 UTC (Thu) by mjr (subscriber, #6979) [Link] Having commented on the original patent grant article, I'll copy over most important tidbits for people to find also in this weekly edition version: The patent license seems to be purely a PR stunt without any real substance whatsoever. First, they don't even assert that anything is covered by their patents (so the current value of their statement is dubious). Second, they assert a right to start acting up anyway if something that is covered by their patents ends up in the kernel. Third, even if some patented thing in Linux was covered by this license, its use is only authorized in the Linux kernel as published on kernel.org (not even vendor- or self-patched versions), which is pretty useless. Fourth, the above condition is incompatible with GPL's clause 7. It follows that if Nokia makes a credible patent claim on something that is in the kernel, then nobody has a valid license to distribute the kernel anymore until the patent issue is sorted out in the usual manner (that is, by getting a GPL-compatible license or working around it). To sum it up, it seems they're just trying to shine their shield after bashing in some FFII heads here in the EU, so that the community would forget their powerful lobbying for software patents and embrace this new toy of theirs. They seem to want to have their FOSS cake and eat it too, with sharp, pointy teeth. If it's unclear why the clause is incompatible with clause 7, see this FSF article on a somewhat analogous situation where field of use restrictions (which are, by the way, less restrictive than what Nokia offers) are incompatible.
Patent grant no good Posted May 26, 2005 5:43 UTC (Thu) by MathFox (subscriber, #6104) [Link] I agree with you that the press release is mostly a publicity stunt. When Nokia starts distributing Linux, they have to abide the GPL. The GPL forbids to add restrictions on use and distribution of the software, so Nokia effectively gives up the right to enforce their patents on the Linux (and Gnome) code the moment they start distributing their toy.Third, even if some patented thing in Linux was covered by this license, its use is only authorized in the Linux kernel as published on kernel.org (not even vendor- or self-patched versions), which is pretty useless.By GPL, the non-enforcement of patents carries over to anyone receiving its code via Nokia (or kernel.org). So the only place where problems could crop up is in the patches that a distributor applies. Anyway, I think that it is good to applaud this as a good first step from Nokia and mention that there could be similar patent issues with Gnome.
Patent grant no good Posted May 26, 2005 5:55 UTC (Thu) by mjr (subscriber, #6979) [Link]
This is true as such, but there are caveats: The device likely doesn't include all of the kernel code commonly used on workstations and servers, and the Gnome framework is a stripped-down version too. Later versions of either aren't covered at all for new infringements. And then there's the fact that they have an army of lawyers to pull an SCO and go "oh, there was that code in there, we didn't intend to license that freely around; we'll just rework the code for our next version, that's fair, innit?" I'd be wary of these implicit patent grants, especially now that they've gone on record with an explicit but limited grant that they can point to and go "look, this is what we actually meant". IANAL. I don't know that the implicit grant (with the caveats mentioned above) isn't solid, I just don't count on it, and wouldn't recommend it to others either. Professional opinions are welcome.
Patent grant no good Posted May 26, 2005 8:48 UTC (Thu) by MathFox (subscriber, #6104) [Link] I agree with you that the implicit patent licence by GPL only applies to the GPL code that Nokia distributes. But it also covers the "we didn't intend to license that" code; reworking allready distributed code is like bolting the stable door when the horse is gone.I don't like the "revocable" part in their license either, but I think that in practice revocation will not happen. It now is in Nokia's interest to keep good relations with (at least) the Linux kernel and Gnome communities. Creating any Open Source patent trouble will cloud those relations.
IANAL either, but lawyers told me that the GPL implicit patent license is pretty solid.
Patent grant no good Posted May 26, 2005 10:13 UTC (Thu) by mjr (subscriber, #6979) [Link]
Mainly I was concerned that they might be able to claim that they didn't know about some bit of code being in the kernel while distributing it and wouldn't have done it had they known, ie. pull an SCO. Not that SCO's doing a good job at pulling an SCO...
This is a nice tidbit, and alleviates my concerns a bit (as far as they relate to code being distributed by patent holders). Thanks for sharing. May I enquire in which country this was, and did they comment on how things are likely to be internationally (and have they got expertise on that)?
Patent grant no good Posted May 27, 2005 9:35 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] There is no implied patent license. I've seen the FSF's explanation of the patent ramifications of GPL, and it consists mainly of Section 0. But Section 0 is a scope clause. It says what things the license (along with its conditions) does and doesn't restrict. One thing it doesn't restrict is how you can use the program. That's a far cry from affirmatively giving you the right to use the program unrestricted. The clause is, "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, ..."FSF also has a complicated explanation of how a not-freely-licensed patent might conflict with GPL by requiring the licensee to place restrictions on modifying the program. I agree that a patent license might conflict with the GPL. But others do not, and no license at all definitely does not. For the sake of the next argument, lets imagine that there's another section in GPL that says, "I permit you to use the program in any way you please." That still wouldn't effect an implied patent license from redistributors. Nokia could (in various ways) nullify that clause in its redistribution. The only effect would be that Nokia would be redistributing without a license, and that means Nokia would owe damages, including royalties, to the copyright owners. That's not the same thing as the recipient of the code from Nokia having a legal right to use Nokia's patents. The recipient still owes Nokia for patent infringement.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 3:18 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] Looks neat but it will all depend on the price. I would rather have a little laptop.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 4:26 UTC (Thu) by pjdc (guest, #6906) [Link] Buy a little laptop, then.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 8:48 UTC (Thu) by thomask (guest, #17985) [Link] But the little laptop's hardware might not be very linux-friendly. I've had all sorts of trouble getting Linux to work with my laptop (which isn't exactly little), and the little laptops will probably use even less common hardware... If I needed to get a small-footprint computer, I'd find this very tempting.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 9:04 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] True, but I'm just worried that it might quickly become too limited. Mostly I'm worried about the lack of a keyboard.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 9:28 UTC (Thu) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375) [Link] Mostly I'm worried about the lack of a keyboard.It does support Bluetooth, so a Bluetooth keyboard would probably work, or could be made to work.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 5:25 UTC (Thu) by johnny (guest, #10110) [Link] I was hoping that handheld Linux machines would standardize on Qtopia. Too few people can use the existing Qtopia applications (since they in practice require a Zaurus device), and too few apps are being created. This chicken-and-egg problem isn't exactly helped by further fragmentation. Just like on the desktop, open source programmers and commercial companies alike will now have to choose an environment to target, provided that they're interested in the small Linux market to begin with. Then again, I suppose it was to be expected, and Nokia has every right to choose themselves what they put in their device. Hopefully Qt will be ported to PocketPC so that the apps I'm working on can find a bigger audience...
Quit whining, diversity is good Posted May 26, 2005 7:34 UTC (Thu) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] I could not disagree with you more. If anything, diversity on the desktop has been a good thing, promoting healthy competition between not only GNOME and KDE but also XFce, with each having its strength. And both the X standard and freedesktop.org have been ensuring that all apps can run in either environment, and even appear in each other's menus.
After all, if only Qt/KDE lovers would get a clue and realize that no vendor wants to create ISV confusion by distributing GPL libraries and that C++ sucks as an infrastructure library language (another layer of runtime bloat, so complex that even some small files with templates require hundreds of megabytes of RAM to compile, the ABI changes every year), maybe we'd all be standardized around GNOME. :-)
Quit whining, diversity is good Posted May 26, 2005 9:10 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link] After all, if only Qt/KDE lovers would get a clue and realize that no vendor wants to create ISV confusion by distributing GPL libraries
Neither Sharp nor the various add on software vendors seemed to have
a problem with using Qtopia on the aforementioned Zauruses, and Opera
(which ships on the Nokia) uses Qt.
Quit whining, diversity is good Posted May 26, 2005 10:57 UTC (Thu) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link] Nokia doesn't use the Opera UI, only the rendering engine from Nokia. No QT involved.
Quit whining, diversity is good Posted May 26, 2005 13:04 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Neither Sharp nor the various add on software vendors seemed to have a problem with using Qtopia on the aforementioned Zauruses Sharp ? No. Add on software vendors ? No. Users ? Yes. When I've checked and found that I can not use most of my C860-compatible software with new C3000... This not what I want - and it's really hard to keep binary compatiblity between different releases of QT-basec things. GNOME is not perfect either but at least they are trying - unlike QT/KDE. And changes in C++ ABI is biggest problem there...
Quit whining, diversity is good Posted May 26, 2005 13:11 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] Admittedly the Qt documentation etc. is excellent, but have you looked atthe Qt commercial version prices? http://www.trolltech.com/products/embedded/pricing.html http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/pricing.html "All developers in your company using Qt will need individual licenses." For a small company, especially the embedded version prices are pretty steep. The developed software has to sell pretty well to get back both the cost of development effort + development SW for the developers and how many of the companies producing just PDA software are doing economically that well? Anyway, I don't think it will take that long from someone to port Qt to the device. It seems pretty standard Linux with X11 and all...
Quit whining, diversity is good Posted May 27, 2005 23:50 UTC (Fri) by komarek (guest, #7295) [Link] The licensing prices aren't all that unreasonable for a business, relative to the probable salary of the developer. So I wouldn't expect the license cost to affect businesses much. Non-businesses that don't want to use the GPL may have troubles with the price. For instance research labs at some universities may want to distribute software, but not be allowed to use the GPL for one reason or another (perhaps the funding agencies require something else, like a BSD license).
I am personally happy that Trolltech has a GPL release for such a great software library. And I don't worry about the C++ API for two reasons. First, I've met a lot of GUI developers that like C++. Second, I use the python bindings.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 15:21 UTC (Thu) by johnny (guest, #10110) [Link] It wasn't my intention to start yet another qt vs gtk war, I just feelthat embedded Linux needs to be a reliable application platform just like the competitors from Palm and MS. It's obvious that "shared library hell" and application intercommunication hell will continue on the handhelds, just like on the desktop. Ok, I'll do as suggested and stop whining. Sorry about that.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 7:25 UTC (Thu) by ll (subscriber, #4404) [Link] The story I saw pegged the retail price for this device at $350. For that price, I need gigs of storage, not megs.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 7:53 UTC (Thu) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link] shame it doesn't play oggs
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 8:37 UTC (Thu) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] I noticed that too. I bet it will by the time they actually release it, though.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 8:30 UTC (Thu) by alain (subscriber, #7119) [Link] Reminds me of Nokias GTK+ Webcore (Apples KHTML Port). Maybe this device will use KHTML based browers then... GTK Webcore works fine btw, just all the functionality beyond pure looking at webpages is missing.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 26, 2005 20:28 UTC (Thu) by apollock (subscriber, #14629) [Link] If this product really is based on a Debian, I wonder if Nokia will contribute helping keep the ARM port from being relegated to second-class citizen state.
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 27, 2005 1:35 UTC (Fri) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link] We will, if we're allowed to (that is, if the Debian buildd admins accept more ARM buildds).
A hands on preview Posted May 27, 2005 3:39 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] Hands on preview at mobileburn.com
A toy and a promise from Nokia Posted May 28, 2005 9:28 UTC (Sat) by rshepard (subscriber, #10787) [Link] It's a shame that left-handers won't be able to use it, effectively.
|
|||||||||||