Intel CEO: Nokia Should Have Gone With Android 246
nk497 writes "Intel CEO Paul Otellini has said Nokia made a mistake choosing Windows Phone 7, and should have gone with Android — but admitted the money on offer may have been too much to ignore. 'I wouldn't have made the decision he made, I would probably have gone to Android if I were him,' he said. 'MeeGo would have been the best strategy but he concluded he couldn't afford it.' Otellini said some closed mobile platforms will 'certainly survive,' but said open systems will 'win' in the end."
Reader c0lo notes a followup to yesterday's news that open source software was banned from Windows Marketplace. It seems even Microsoft's own MS-RL open source license runs afoul of the Application Provider Agreement (PDF). The article suggests that these rules should give Nokia pause about their new partnership.
open source software isn't banned (Score:5, Informative)
They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Microsoft as distributors) On the other hand BSD like licenses that allow you to repackage and distribute without source and without passing rights forward are acceptable.
Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA:
"Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses"
Re:really intel? (Score:5, Informative)
They also shouldn't risk biting a major player in the market. WP7 has a lot of big corporate backers, now obviously including Nokia. Whether they will be successful or not depends on a lot of factors, but Intel should be aiming to sell chips to nokia, whether it's for MeeGo, Droid, WP7 or some other OS, not criticising their management choices publicly.
Like it or not, Nokia still sells a LOT of phones, meaning there's a lot of money to be made as a part supplier, and a good chance than the sheer mass of Nokia + WP7 will be able to sustain that ecosystem. I know a lot of people coming over from Europe (I live in canada) regularly laugh at how terrible a lot of our supposedly wonderful iPhones etc. are, when Nokia phones have had better call quality, voice dialling, very good integration with MS office (without extra fees), maps etc. long before Apple or Google started bringing that to market. They still have a lot of brand loyalty, and a strong brand if they call pull it together.
Re:open source software isn't banned (Score:3, Informative)
To be fair, and I'm no more an MS fan than anyone, the GPL puts an onus on Microsoft to do things that they don't want to be arsed to do. As the owner of the "store" Microsoft becomes the "distributor" of GPL software. That means if you, AC, put a piece of GPLed software on the store, you are effectively obligating MS to host the source code and GPL somewhere as the distributor. You can say, "Well, I'll handle that, they don't have to worry about it.", but they do have to worry about it. If you decided next month to stop "handling that" and the software is still on the store, MS is left holding the bag. By forbidding GPL code they are covering their asses.
This will become a problem as time goes on and more of these online "stores" pop up. As "distributors" these stores take on certain obligations that they may not want to deal with. Free software is easy enough to deal with when every computer has a compiler (or can easily get one). With the limited space and processing power on mobile devices "app stoes" make a lot of sense, but the GPL is decidedly unfriendly to the way most of them are setup. Maybe if the GPL put the onus on the developer to redistribute the code and license rather than the distributor? I dunno, I don't see Stallman changing the GPL to accommodate app stores, since he hates most of the companies that own them. It'll be interesting to see how it play out.
I'm not saying that either position is right or wrong, just that there are some intractable issues that may make them unable to work together.
Re:Short Nokia stock (Score:5, Informative)
Funny, I've had mine now for over a year and wouldn't give it up for anything. It's not a perfect phone, but it's a great pocket computer with phone capabilities. Perhaps one device and one OS doesn't work for everyone, unlike what Jobs and Ballmer would have us believe.
Re:really intel? (Score:5, Informative)
Remember this? [arstechnica.com] Intel lost in this deal already. They are probably quite angry with Nokia for betraying the partnership they had with MeeGo. Intel has a right to criticize their former partner Nokia, and I think it's good that the Intel chief has the balls to do so for what, in the end, will probably turn out to be a terrible decision, one that harmed both Nokia and Intel all just to help Microsoft.
Re:Actually only the GPL, not open source in gener (Score:4, Informative)
Re:open source software isn't banned (Score:4, Informative)
No
They are prohibiting neither. They are prohibiting GPLv3, not v2. The significant difference is that GPLv3 has the interesting patent "mutual assured destruction" clause which is in direct contradiction to a number Microsoft agreements with customers and policies. In fact they cannot legally redist v3 without changing the policy they take on IPR.
Wrong, wrong, wrong (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair, and I'm no more an MS fan than anyone, the GPL puts an onus on Microsoft to do things that they don't want to be arsed to do. As the owner of the "store" Microsoft becomes the "distributor" of GPL software. That means if you, AC, put a piece of GPLed software on the store, you are effectively obligating MS to host the source code and GPL somewhere as the distributor. You can say, "Well, I'll handle that, they don't have to worry about it.", but they do have to worry about it. If you decided next month to stop "handling that" and the software is still on the store, MS is left holding the bag. By forbidding GPL code they are covering their asses.
This will become a problem as time goes on and more of these online "stores" pop up. As "distributors" these stores take on certain obligations that they may not want to deal with. Free software is easy enough to deal with when every computer has a compiler (or can easily get one). With the limited space and processing power on mobile devices "app stoes" make a lot of sense, but the GPL is decidedly unfriendly to the way most of them are setup. Maybe if the GPL put the onus on the developer to redistribute the code and license rather than the distributor? I dunno, I don't see Stallman changing the GPL to accommodate app stores, since he hates most of the companies that own them. It'll be interesting to see how it play out.
I'm not saying that either position is right or wrong, just that there are some intractable issues that may make them unable to work together.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! The store is not the distributor, they are the retailer. You can buy Ubuntu DVDs online, that does not make the person selling it responsible for the gpl, unless they are the ones who also put it together, in which case they are a developer.
If I repackage LibreOffice and call it MyOffice and I sell it to people online or in a retail store, I as the developer are responsible for adhering to the GPL or whatever licensing agreements of the components use, not the retailer.
Open source projects are fond of using "Free as in beer" as their slogan. You can go into the grocery store and by a case of it. If you then go and drink it all and do something stupid or even criminal, the grocery store is not responsible, nor is the brewery. On the other hand, let's say the beer was tainted with something. Again, the grocery store isn't responsible, but this time the brewery is.
GPL software works the same way. It is not the retailer (grocery store in the example above) that is responsible for ensuring the licenses are followed it is the author/developer. At most, if Amazon or anybody else was selling software that turned out to be in violation, they would need to pull it off their shelves (website), but they themself would not be liable or in violation of anything.