Hi,
I have a comment on Symbian Signed and Open Source. The Freeware FAQ on the
Symbian Signed website states that
"Q. Is Open Source software included in this route to market?
A. Open source software is included and encouraged by this route to market,
provided no charge is made for the resulting application as outlined above. "
However, all the widespread open source licenses, including the most popular
GNU General Public License (GPL) permit the users and developers of the
software to sell it, provided the source code is included and no further
restrictions are introduced. So this requirement is in fact incompatible with
the Open Source definition and effectively excludes it from certification.
I suggest changing the requirement so that it states something along the lines:
"Open source software is included and encouraged by this route to
market, provided it is licensed under one or more of these licences:
GNU General Public License, Common Public License, ... (possibly more)"
and changing the required dialog text accordingly:
"This application is provided under the GNU GPL (or whatever open source
license is used) and should include instructions on obtaining the source code
text. If you believe this is not the case, please e-mail
[email][email protected][/email] with the details of where you obtained the product."
--
Alexander
Homepage: http://www.sensi.org/~ak/
"Alexander Kanavin" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:cndPQKN1FHA.2824@extapps30...
> Hi,
>
> I have a comment on Symbian Signed and Open Source. The Freeware FAQ on
> the
> Symbian Signed website states that
>
> "Q. Is Open Source software included in this route to market?
>
> A. Open source software is included and encouraged by this route to
> market,
> provided no charge is made for the resulting application as outlined
> above. "
>
> However, all the widespread open source licenses, including the most
> popular
> GNU General Public License (GPL) permit the users and developers of the
> software to sell it, provided the source code is included and no further
> restrictions are introduced. So this requirement is in fact incompatible
> with
> the Open Source definition and effectively excludes it from certification.
I don't see why this requirement is incompatible. If you are asking money
for the Open Source product, you should be a ble to pay for the signing.
You are not the one introducing a restriction on the use of the Open Source
product, it is the platform provider the user himself has choosen. If the
user doesn't like that, he has made the wrong choice.
--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com
> I suggest changing the requirement so that it states something along the
> lines:
>
> "Open source software is included and encouraged by this route to
> market, provided it is licensed under one or more of these licences:
> GNU General Public License, Common Public License, ... (possibly more)"
>
> and changing the required dialog text accordingly:
>
> "This application is provided under the GNU GPL (or whatever open source
> license is used) and should include instructions on obtaining the source
> code
> text. If you believe this is not the case, please e-mail
> [email][email protected][/email] with the details of where you obtained the
> product."
>
> --
> Alexander
>
> Homepage: http://www.sensi.org/~ak/
Sander van der Wal wrote:
> I don't see why this requirement is incompatible. If you are asking money
> for the Open Source product, you should be a ble to pay for the signing.
This means that open source developers have to collect a few hundred
euros in donations for each new binary version (even if it's just
bugfixes), or ask all of their users to obtain personal developer
certificates, install SDKs, and compile the sources themselves.
Anyway, I thought about it some more, and I think I was in fact wrong.
GPLd applications can be signed through freeware signing program,
because GPL does not have any requirements about the distribution of
binaries. So you can distribute them under any terms you wish (or are
forced into by a contract, like in this case with free Symbian
certification).
Alex
>I don't see why this requirement is incompatible. If you are asking money
>for the Open Source product, you should be a ble to pay for the signing.
>
>You are not the one introducing a restriction on the use of the Open Source
>product, it is the platform provider the user himself has choosen. If the
>user doesn't like that, he has made the wrong choice.
Sander - you are correct. The Symbian Signed Freeware Route To Market is
designed to provide a free route to market for full, unrestricted products for
which no money is demanded by the author. This naturally includes and encourages
open source which is provided for free. As you say, if you are charging for
these products (as indeed some licences do allow) then you are in a similar
position to either commercial or shareware applications - in which case it would
be more appropriate for you to use the traditional (ACS + Test House) route
through Symbian Signed, or a Publisher Certifier (e.g. Handango).
Regards,
Phil
Assume each end user were to obtain a personal developer certificate and
that open source developers make their .sis files available unsigned. It
would be trivial to host a website where end users can upload such
unsigned .sis files together with their own "developer" certificate. The
backend would run the standard SDK tools to sign the app. There's no
need for end users to install any tool.
Just a thought... 😊
Pete
Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> This means that open source developers have to collect a few hundred
> euros in donations for each new binary version (even if it's just
> bugfixes), or ask all of their users to obtain personal developer
> certificates, install SDKs, and compile the sources themselves.