Nokia: Open source developers need to embrace DRM
- June 13th, 2008
- 6 Comments
According to BusinessWeek, Nokia’s Dr. Ari Jaaski told a group of open source developers on Tuesday that they need to “obey” certain business rules, such as DRM, intellectual property rights, SIM locking, and subsidized business models.
Last time I checked, open source developers generally write applications that fulfill a need that’s otherwise gone unfulfilled – and most of those developers work for free.
Jaaski conceded that things like DRM “go against the open-source philosophy” but Nokia has to cover its bases from a legal standpoint, I suppose. It’s just difficult to convince people to develop free software for you after you tie their hands together.
Jaaski also admitted that Nokia has learned from some of its early mistakes concerning the Maemo platform, which is used on the company’s N770, and N800-series Internet Tablets – particularly that future software development for the platform needs to be less fragmented by adhering closer to Nokia’s standards.
"Don’t make your own version. The original mistake we made was to take the code to our labs, change it and then release it at the last minute. The community had already gone in a different direction than [us], and no-one was pushing it other than [us]. Everybody wants to make their own version and keep it too close to their chest but that leads to fragmentation."
I read this as Nokia saying, “You guys develop free stuff just for our devices. We’ll take the code when it’s done and lock it down.”
via Slashdot
Chris Taylor Jr (Who am I?)
2 months ago
As far as I am concerned DRM should be outright illegal for anything “purchased” It is literally tantamount to Theft of My Property.
My “property” should NEVER be permitted to dictate terms to ME. I OWN IT. It should do as I command no matter what under any conditions.
Otherwise its not fully my property but partially the property of the controller of the programming. I do not want and did not agree to “dual ownership” and do not ACCEPT dual ownership.
DRM should be illegal.
Frank MacGill (Who am I?)
2 months ago
Hey Chris. You’re a dick. You don’t own it outright unless you pay the full amount of what it is worth. If you only buy a 1 player license for $0.99, then you only own a 1 player license. If you buy a 5 player license for $1.49, then you own a 5 player license. Or if you buy the source tracks for $1.5 million, then you own the source tracks. Got it Chri\s?
Chris Taylor Jr (Who am I?)
2 months ago
Sorry We simply do not agree on this Frank. First you have a reading problem I was speaking very clearly of HARDWARE. “I OWN” my mp3 player. Lock Stock and Bond. it is my physical property. I OWN IT. its not licensed borrowed loaned or rented.
Do you agree with this? Do you agree that I can break it if I want. Paint it if I want Modify it if I want? IT IS my property after all.
DRM is criminal because it STRIPS me of my property rights by having MY PROPERTY (the player) do things that are outside of MY CONTROL. this is not tolerable.
This would be like 55mph governors being installed on our cars. Would you tolerate such a thing? Want to put a governor on your RENTAL CAR. FINE its YOUR (companies) car they can and should be able to do as they please with them.
but when I BUY a car its MY PROPERTY now and should do as I command and ONLY as I command. Period. If you disagree the flaw is yours and your problem.
NOW lets move this onto Music of Video. What is the difference?
WHY suddenly do I not OWN the CD I buy versus the CD PLAYER I buy? they are NOT different. If you think they are again the flaw is yours you have absorbed the propaganda they spew.
You say but there is Intellectual Property involved. this is also the case with the CAR and CD player and SHIRT on your back. When its “soft” we call it copyright when its “hard” we call it patent. No different.
When I buy a CD I OWN IT. I do NOT recognize or honor “license” or “TOS” or “EULA”
Those things do not apply to my property. Period. Not up for negotiation.
NOW when I do things NON PERSONAL with my property such as “give it to someone else” NOW you can apply restrictions because now I am CHANGING my ownership from personal property to PRODUCT (even if its free) and that is where I DO NOT own the rights to said IP.
Just like I can hack and copy anything in my car for any reason but I can not SELL “copies” of the car.
NOTE I can Modify a single car and “sell” it but I can not modify a single CD and sell it. (well I CAN but the RIAA would have something to say about that)
NOTHING is more important than PROPERTY RIGHTS. ALL RIGHTS AND FREEDOM are derived from property. No property NO RIGHTS.
Sadly people like you forget this and ruin things for the rest of us.
I do not recognize 1 player licenses I signed NO SUCH contract to that end and will not honor such “imposed” terms. Period.
Got it Frank?
Frank MacGill (Who am I?)
2 months ago
Chris, you’re still a dick. The DRM doesn’t apply to your hardware. It applies to each song or movie that you buy. You are free to do what you like with your hardware. You can stick your tongue in your hardware and nobody will care.
Chris Taylor Jr (Who am I?)
2 months ago
and you are still a moron frank and starting to act like a troll. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
education: drm software requires drm hardware to work. if drm becomes pervasive and accepted as mandatory manufacturers will have little choice but to make there hardware comply with the drm. or was that too much of a concept for you to grasp.
I also consoder purchased “content” or “software” to be my property. period. its my money “I” set the terms.
ownership is a right. copyright contrary to its spelling is NOT a right but a priviledge granted by this country for a limitted time at least its supposed to be limited.
lack of education in people like you is what permits them to twist alter and abuse this system
ricardo (Who am I?)
2 months ago
ill settle this!!
FRANK you are the dick! Captain major first class!!
arguing FOR drm!
half a brain and you’d be dangerous!