<shmerl> Hi
<Stskeeps> hello shmerl
<shmerl> Stskeeps: Someone on TMO said that they saw Jolla commenting that some core applications in Sailfish will remain closed source (not 3rd party stuff like Android emulator but Jolla's stuff). Is it really correct or there is some hope that Jolla will fully open them?
<shmerl> I'm more concerned about things like e-mail client and similar common core applications.
<Stskeeps> i think personally that the moment you say one or the other you have to stick to it
<shmerl> I didn't see Jolla saying either way, so I assumed that this will be explained after the release.
<shmerl> So just wanted to confirm that Jolla didn't make any such statements yet.
<shmerl> Or may be did, and I just missed them.
<shmerl> Also, good news from the Akademy about using Wayland. But just a suggestion - it's good to publish such things somewhere on Sailfish FAQ or Wiki as well.
<Yaniel> yeah
<shmerl> Otherwise fetching them from twitter is somewhat awkward.
<Yaniel> some central place to collect officially stated things
<Yaniel> especially these technical details
<shmerl> Stskeeps: So for the public, Jolla didn't say "yay or nay" about open sourcing yet, correct?
<Stskeeps> newborn son on chest, give me 15 min
<shmerl> Ah, no problem :)
<Morpog_> I do understand Stskeeps as he doesn't want to answer it yet. :)
<Stskeeps> shmerl: regarding qt5+wayland that'll prolly come with SDK; regarding license status of UI, it's currently closed source but nobody knows the future. anything up just below UI besides 3rd party is available in nemo and mer
<shmerl> By UI you mean the environment built on top of the lipstick?
<Stskeeps> and apps, etc
<Stskeeps> HW adaptations are exempt from this rule naturally as they are 3rd party msotly
<shmerl> I see.
<Morpog_> excluding silicia components i guess?
<shmerl> Yeah, I though silica is open.
<Stskeeps> just enough for developers currently, the QML is BSD as that's what developers will customize
<shmerl> Stskeeps: Right now everything is closed naturally since nothing is published yet (except what comes with the SDK).
<Stskeeps> shmerl: yeah, but a significant majority is out there and openly develope
<Stskeeps> d
<Stskeeps> nothing stops nemomobile as an example to do fancy qt5+wayland based stuff like we do
<shmerl> The question rather is, does Jolla has plans about it, or it's not even decided yet for the future.
<shmerl> What I mean mostly are core applications like e-mail client.
<Stskeeps> well, as i said, nobody knows the future
<shmerl> If that's closed, Nemo for example can't use it.
<Stskeeps> personally what i'm curious about: is it about extending functionality or running it elsewhere?
<shmerl> It's either way. And it's also safety. Harmattan was abandoned and nothing could be reused.
<shmerl> Investing in closed components is a risk.
<faenil> shmerl, though email framework is open in Nemo...so you just need a UI for it..
<shmerl> faenil: End user doesn't care about it, if the UI is absent.
<Stskeeps> currently the limit goes at the middleware and technologies used to make sailfish UI is open and openly developed
<Stskeeps> which is a fairly big step up from how things have been in the past, even with meego
<Stskeeps> MW is the real hard part
<Stskeeps> UI anybody can do
<faenil> shmerl, end user doesn't care about messing with code
<faenil> shmerl, what Stskeeps just said
<shmerl> faenil: Exactly. So end user won't start using Nemo, until there is a functional e-mail client.
<Stskeeps> as an example, faenil just got nemo mobile lipstick for wayland working on virtualbox on very solid middleware
<Stskeeps> without significant help
<Stskeeps> this used to be really damn difficult(TM)
<faenil> Nemo can have its awesome email client, as far as framework is open
<faenil> Stskeeps, o/
<shmerl> Stskeeps: It's also about not duplicating the effort pointlessly.
<shmerl> faenil: Can and has are different things.
<Stskeeps> shmerl: sure
<Morpog_> stskeeps, I think it will be less an issue if it's open or not, if 3rd party stuff can plugin into your apps/frameworks/api's properly and enhance or alter that stuff
<shmerl> Stskeeps: Mozilla for example are keeping all applications open.
<faenil> shmerl, of course...
<shmerl> What I'm saying, that Nemo will remain a research project, until it will have core functionality covered.
<shmerl> And they could share that with Sailfish, if the later would be open.
<Stskeeps> anyway - this is how the situation is today
<Stskeeps> things may look different later, but it's very much also about not opening unless you can be open
<Stskeeps> if you can't develop in an open manner, open source doesn't matter -- look at tizen, it's a full, open set of apps
<Stskeeps> where's the community contributions?
<shmerl> Stskeeps: Understandable, but that basically was my question. Is anything preventing it? I.e. why can't it be open?
<shmerl> Stskeeps: Tizen has a long history of not having an open development at all.
<shmerl> So I guess they lost community interest.
<Morpog_> shmerl, nemo is aiming for own QML components as far as I understood. SailfishOS apps would look kinda strange on nemo then.
<Stskeeps> well, as a start, starting to do something in the open takes significant effort; it involves a lot of bootstrapping
<Stskeeps> it won't work if your processes for development run internally
<shmerl> Stskeeps: So it's more about logistic, rather than about fear of competition?
<Stskeeps> and if you have a product to put out, polish, it's something that isn't easy to do or rationalize
<Stskeeps> especially when you're strapped for resources to do so
<Stskeeps> shmerl: you're quite inquisitive
<shmerl> I mean, for some fear of competition is the primary problem for opening stuff. For others it's just too much hassle.
<shmerl> The former is very hard to overcome, but the later is solvable.
<Stskeeps> personally i don't think it's the right time
<shmerl> Stskeeps: May be, but then like Tizen, if it's opened, community will already have a feeling that it's tightly controlled.
<Stskeeps> and we already do quite a lot in the open, even if it's not the sexiest parts
<Stskeeps> for actual OS developers, they are the sexy parts
<shmerl> Stskeeps: I'm just worrying, that it will follow Nokia's mistakes.
<Stskeeps> i would have loved to have what we have today back in the day
<shmerl> Also, for some open stack is a matter of preference. Since Sailfish needs wider adoption, it's probably good to have that as a "feature".
<shmerl> Firefox OS uses that to promote itself.
<shmerl> So Sailfish will be at a disadvantage in this aspect.
<Morpog_> shmerl, for the mass of users it's uninteresting
<shmerl> Mass of users aren't going to use either one.
<shmerl> At least initially.
<Morpog_> it shouldn't be like that, bit it is
<shmerl> those interested in free software will use them first.
<Stskeeps> it's easy to say everything should be open
<Morpog_> well, mass for me is also a few hundred thousands that get a low end firefox OS device
<Stskeeps> in practice it's not so easy
<shmerl> Understandable. But it depends on the will to open or not. For example OpenSolaris devs worked hard to open stuff, gradually.
<shmerl> And they did, until only stuff blocked by third party agreements remained closed, and illumos rewrote that from scratch
<shmerl> So I'm not saying it's easy. I'm more interested whether Jolla has the will or not ;)
<Stskeeps> well, you'd have to ask in a more official manner and sometimes, one's will and desires are private when you're surrounded by sharks :)
<shmerl> Sure, I can send some question to the public Jolla contact if you think it's a good thing to ask.
<Stskeeps> but anyway
<Stskeeps> 60fps, designer-driven UI, strict reviews
<Stskeeps> that's something that is hard to do in an open manner
<shmerl> I especially understand it that before the release Jolla has too much stuff to worry about.
<shmerl> So may be it's better to ask after it.
<Stskeeps> because you'll have to accept that a designer chief's word is law
<shmerl> The only problem - the later it is, the worse it can be.
<Stskeeps> and that if your application is sub-60fps, it's not good enough
<Stskeeps> it's like playing in the linux kernel
<Stskeeps> and if you can't get your changes integrated, what's open source good for?
<Stskeeps> it's not as black and white as 'open' and 'closed' :)
<faenil> Stskeeps, let's see if Sailfish can reach iOS' smoothness level...at its golden days, I mean :)
<sledges> 50 shades of openness :D
<faenil> I've never seen any OS reach that level of smoothness so far :)
<Yaniel> sledges: that sounds like it might even be readable
<shmerl> Stskeeps: Yes, open development is one step up from open source.
<faenil> ahah
<shmerl> But starting with open source has benefits too. At least others can review the code, reuse it and etc.