Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Symbian releases microkernel
The Symbian Foundation has announced the
release of the platform microkernel (EKA2) and supporting development kit
under the Eclipse Public License (EPL). "To enable the community to
fully utilise the open source kernel, Symbian is providing a complete
development kit, free of charge, including ARM's high performance RVCT
compiler toolchain. The provision of the kit demonstrates Symbian's
commitment to lowering access barriers to encourage the wider development
community - such as research institutions, enthusiast groups and individual
developers - to get creative with the code."
(Log in to post comments)
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 23, 2009 19:38 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]
Are they trying to say that they couldn't get it to compile with any of the Open Source compilers, and they're providing us with a binary copy of a proprietary compiler to build it?
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 23, 2009 19:40 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]
Here's what the announcement said: "High performance ARM compiler toolchain (RVCT4.0): free to developers and companies of less than 20 employees".<p>
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 23, 2009 19:50 UTC (Fri) by paragw (subscriber, #45306) [Link]
http://developer.symbian.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_%26_Ha... says GCCE support is in progress. Seems to me like a good thing that they got the sources out earlier rather than waiting until it can be compiled by GCC.
Given that for years the codebase has been built by a commercial compiler there is bound to be significant amount of work to be done to remove all the RVCT-isms.
Besides they might be hoping once the source is out in the open, may be people will come forward and contribute build-with-GCC patches. (Gotta check though if they are readily accepting patches from outside contributors.)
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 24, 2009 6:34 UTC (Sat) by imcdnzl (subscriber, #28899) [Link]
Just to clarify - yes we are readily accepting any code changes to convert to gcc, along with any code changes. We are trying to build a vibrant community.
We also try to use open source internally where possible, and I'm aiming to increase this. See http://iansblog.jandi.co.uk/2009/10/open-source-inside.html for a few more details.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 23, 2009 20:30 UTC (Fri) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
SymbianOS used to be built using gcc 2.x (it's C++ and they didn't want to change the ABI) or VC++ for the 'emulation' environment. Back in 2002 I did some of the work to make it build on the ARM compiler, which uses the more standard-compliant EDG front-end. I think they made the switch a while after that, but I'd be surprised if there's much change required to make it build on gcc again. However, gcc's code generation for ARM is currently very poor.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 23, 2009 23:43 UTC (Fri) by paragw (subscriber, #45306) [Link] However, gcc's code generation for ARM is currently very poor.That's interesting - so do the ARM based phone makers all use commercial compilers? I thought Apple uses GCC for compiling iPhone Apps at the least (and so does Android)? Also there is support for ARM in LLVM 2.6 and I have heard it is good at producing optimized code. May be GCC is just "Good Enough" for most?
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 24, 2009 0:50 UTC (Sat) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"That's interesting - so do the ARM based phone makers all use commercial compilers?"
The linux kernel only really supports compilation under gcc, so any linux-based phone will at least have a gcc compiled kernel. So that's android, maemo, LiMo, palm's webos...
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 24, 2009 4:28 UTC (Sat) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
It would be possible to build the kernel on another compiler if that compiler improperly integrated GPL code from the GCC compiler into it or some other measures that involve abusing the GPL license.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 24, 2009 5:32 UTC (Sat) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link] Are you just trolling? How on earth would compiling Linux with an alternate kernel be a GPL violation? In fact, people compile the kernel with Intel's compiler. I think they're crazy, but it seems to work, and it's certainly not in violation of anyone's license.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 24, 2009 14:16 UTC (Sat) by engla (guest, #47454) [Link]
OT, but notice how small the patch for 2.6.30 is, 13 kB, icc is really starting to close the gap.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 24, 2009 18:16 UTC (Sat) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
My comment was probably over the line but I don't like Symbian. They trolled against Linux and the GPL for half a dozen years. When Linux finally started to hurt them they sell out to Nokia and then they "embraced" open source while continuing to troll the GPL and Linux. Symbian has never been a friend of the OSS community. Nokia buying them might eventually neutralize them but they have a long way to go to earn my trust that they aren't a danger to the community. I would question any donation of code from them as a possible subversive attempt to sink copyrighted code into the kernel.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 25, 2009 7:10 UTC (Sun) by imcdnzl (subscriber, #28899) [Link]
Remember that the code is now looked after by Symbian Foundation, not Symbian and that this is a completely different company. We (Symbian Foundation) were donated the code by Nokia, Sony Ericsson and NTT DoCoMo.
We are a not for profit, under a limited by guarantee structure (i.e. no shareholders).
Nokia themselves seem to have "got" open source, having donated us the code and also opened up Qt far more (which incidentally allows us to put Qt on the phone which is currently in beta)
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 25, 2009 7:44 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
In the absence of any profit-related motives, what was the reasoning behind choosing a license that makes it effectively impossible to use any of the Symbian kernel code in any existing open-source kernel projects?
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 25, 2009 9:13 UTC (Sun) by deucalion (guest, #12904) [Link]
It is more business friendly. (See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License#Other... )
Even though the Symbian Foundation is a non-profit, in order to sustain long term existance a good combination of a opensource community and business partners (foundation members) is needed.
A good working example for this is the Eclipse Foundation, working with a similar "business model" (for the lack of a better word - eventhough it's non-profit and meant for better collaboration and development):
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 25, 2009 14:24 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
"Business friendly" and being friendly to proprietary licensing is not the same thing. Permissive licenses enable certain business models but hinders certain other business models such as dual licensing. Whether dual licensing is a good model is a separate debate but I just wanted to note that since I see that confusion quite often.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 25, 2009 14:37 UTC (Sun) by deucalion (guest, #12904) [Link]
I use proprietary licensing as a connotation of business friendly in this context because it is the most common way to make money through software. I'm however aware of the fact that it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.
But... admittedly, deciding which business and legal model makes most sense is a different discussion.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 26, 2009 20:23 UTC (Mon) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
No, the most common way to make money through software is to use the software to run a business, regardless of which license it is under.
Your statement was likely intended to be: "I use proprietary licensing as a connotation of business friendly in this context because it is the most common way to make money BY SELLING software LICENSES." But, by wording it that way, it makes it somewhat obvious that it is somewhat of a circular reason. If I completely miss-interpreted what you meant, please do clarify.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 26, 2009 20:46 UTC (Mon) by deucalion (guest, #12904) [Link]
Please excuse my ambiguous wording - your interpretation is spot on.
Thanks!
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 25, 2009 17:28 UTC (Sun) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] - allow independent as well as Even if you'd written that as a normal sentence, rather than as a "business-friendly" set of bullet-points, you could still plug the GPL into those criteria and get the green light. What you really mean, of course, is that the EPL allows people to redistribute the code without revealing their own sources and - an area dear to Symbian's heart, I'm sure - without agreeing to not sue various people over patents.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 29, 2009 19:26 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
Do you mean Nokia's heart?
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 25, 2009 11:26 UTC (Sun) by dbruce (guest, #57948) [Link]
He's not saying that building the kernel on a non-GPL compiler is a GPL violation. He's saying that one way to get a compiler other than gcc to build the kernel successfully might be to patch the commercial compiler with GPL code from gcc. (if you are the company with said commercial compiler). That's OK if the patched compiler stays in-house, but it wouldn't be distributable to others unless the whole compiler gets released as GPL code.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 25, 2009 12:09 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
This is ridiculously impractical, of course, unless the compiler into
which you're dumping bits of GCC is itself related to GCC: and in that case, that compiler must also be GPLed, so there's no violation.
(Sure, someone might start a new compiler project under a different
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 24, 2009 5:38 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
you need to implement some GCC extentions to the C progrmming languange.
that does not require copying _any_ code from GCC, and if you aren't copying code you can't be a derivitive work, so copyright law does not apply.
in spite of what big media would like yo to believe, you don't copyright concepts and ideas, just the completed work.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 24, 2009 8:18 UTC (Sat) by tao (guest, #17563) [Link]
Except, of course, if you're Disney, in which case everything goes, it seems...
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 24, 2009 20:26 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
disney is exactly that big media I was talking about.
and yes the big media folks do manage to get some rulings out of the courts that are just wrong (and if they were used as presidents, would turn around and bite the same big media later)
the cases around books that have similar settings to the Harry Potter series are another example of where things have gone very wrong.
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 25, 2009 11:15 UTC (Sun) by tao (guest, #17563) [Link]
Or the good old The Wind Done Gone, which gotta be one of the more frivolous cases of
copyright abuse...
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 25, 2009 11:32 UTC (Sun) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]
It depends on which GCC version one uses and which particular set or
version of the ARM instruction set one means. GCC 3.x support wasn't that good for ARM, GCC 4.x (used already everywhere) is much better.
As to kernel being compiled with GCC... Kernel doesn't itself use all the
Symbian releases microkernel Posted Oct 26, 2009 13:43 UTC (Mon) by philh (subscriber, #14797) [Link]
Am I right in thinking that if one wanted to load this onto a symbian based phone, having patched it, there would be no chance, because the patched version would no longer be signed by the device manufacturer?
If not, why would I want to waste any effort writing code for a platform where the manufacturers have this inequitable hold over their devices? Especially when they can grab my source, trivially patch it, sign it, and sell my own code back to me, which would be somewhat irksome.
If on the other hand, it is possible, what's to stop me stripping out stuff I don't feel the need for (including stuff like DRM enforcement and tethering prevention)
|
|
||||||||||||