>Jolla are doing the majority of the work in these two projects. So purely in terms of governance and technical knowledge, they are in a position of quite a bit of power. Now, that having been said, the work on these projects has always >(without exception) been done in the public realm, with the aim of collaborating with others, to some degrees of success. We've seen people make tools/hacks/fixes around that stuff, and that's great. It might be improvable, but it's a >positive thing already.
>I guess what I'm trying to say is that, from a strictly open source point of view, the ones doing the work dictate the direction - one could even say this implies ownership, yes. But on the other hand, while I can't speak for the entire >company, I (and the folks I know and work with on a daily basis) have collaboration and cooperation at heart, even if execution could be improved on - which is what provided the impetus for this thread. The "dictation of direction" is a side-effect of evolution - as in, Jolla is the main contributor *because* Jolla relies on Mer/Nemo for Sailfish, *because *Jolla has needs for features / bug fixes etc. This is not dictatorship, this is more like innovation IMO. Jolla is a company, heck, even a DEVICE VENDOR nowadays (thanks to the OH) and as such, has it's own development plan. OpenRepos is what comes as close to Maemo-extras as it can nowadays, I believe. People are free to install whatever they want on their Jolla, but Jolla needs to follow up on their development. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Robin Burchell <robin.burch...@jolla.com>wrote: > > On 05 Apr 2014, at 10:21, Thomas B. Rücker <tho...@ruecker.fi> wrote: > > Reading this I can't help but wonder if Jolla now claims ownership of > Mer/Nemo then. Even with fancy hat changing. Bringing this discussion up > in a strictly Sailfish context implies this. > > > I think you've read a little much into things, but I'd like to point out > the obvious here: > > Jolla are doing the majority of the work in these two projects. So > purely in terms of governance and technical knowledge, they are in a > position of quite a bit of power. Now, that having been said, the work on > these projects has always (without exception) been done in the public > realm, with the aim of collaborating with others, to some degrees of > success. We've seen people make tools/hacks/fixes around that stuff, and > that's great. It might be improvable, but it's a positive thing already. > > I guess what I'm trying to say is that, from a strictly open source > point of view, the ones doing the work dictate the direction - one could > even say this implies ownership, yes. But on the other hand, while I can't > speak for the entire company, I (and the folks I know and work with on a > daily basis) have collaboration and cooperation at heart, even if execution > could be improved on - which is what provided the impetus for this thread. > > Power doesn't necessarily mean dominance. > > There are other downstream projects relying on Mer and I'd expect this > to be discussed with them, in a completely "vendor neutral" setting. Mer > used to be big about this, before it got dragged into a "ship a product" > race of one of the involved parties. > > > This is open source. We can't dictate what other people do. And if we're > polite, we talk first, of course. I do think that some of the things you > were replying to are about addressing a very real problem, though, which is > that contributing to Nemo (and Sailfish, Mer, and the surrounding universe) > has a lot of rough edges. It won't be a panacea, but it's something to > start thinking on. > > _______________________________________________ > SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list >
_______________________________________________ SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list
