Guest fonix232 Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 The source is only available until 31st March 2011 from their website. Let's not forget that it was Nokia who made Symbian open source in the first place. In the moment it is removed from the public access, it is considered as an inner source, and: a, Does not belong under the Apache (or whatever licence they used) Licencing b, Is not proper any more c, Should not be uploaded anywhere The source, the way it is, becomes kinda "illegal". You won't get punished for owning it, but you can't use it for anything (can't release stuff, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nick Rhodes Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 In the moment it is removed from the public access, it is considered as an inner source, and: Inner source ? Surely you mean closed source :( a, Does not belong under the Apache (or whatever licence they used) Licencing You cannot remove or change licences for already released/distributed versions though. All they can do is not release any newer versions of the source. b, Is not proper any more Do you mean won't be an official version ? If so true, but still perfectly legitimate (forking of software is common in open source world). c, Should not be uploaded anywhere If you already have a previously released version (up to the final version before being removed from public) you can re-distribute according to most popular open source licences (which cant be removed). The source, the way it is, becomes kinda "illegal". You won't get punished for owning it, but you can't use it for anything (can't release stuff, etc). Any existing released versions of symbian continue with the same licencing terms they were distributed to, they can't be removed, the licencing terms cant be retracted. If I chose Apache for v 2.1 but then changed to GPLv3 for v2.2 I cannot legally remove the Apache licence from my v2.1, the most I can do is add an additional licence to v2.1. Cheers, Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fonix232 Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Yes you are right. But, when you add a new licence, it's properties overwrite the old one's. So if first licence says you can freely redistribute, then second one says you can only distribute binaries with publishing source (your examle) you can not choose to DO NOT distribute the source. Like this, if Nokia modifies the licence (adds a new one) with such properties, you have no right to release a binary image of Symbian for any goals (mostly this is limited for commercial, like to sell a device). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbaw Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yes you are right. But, when you add a new licence, it's properties overwrite the old one's. So if first licence says you can freely redistribute, then second one says you can only distribute binaries with publishing source (your examle) you can not choose to DO NOT distribute the source. Like this, if Nokia modifies the licence (adds a new one) with such properties, you have no right to release a binary image of Symbian for any goals (mostly this is limited for commercial, like to sell a device). Only for newer versions that were released under the new license. They can't add extra conditions to the license of old versions of the software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now