Slashdot Mirror


Nokia to Acquire and Open Source Symbian

zyzko writes "Nokia has placed an offer on Symbian stock — it currently owns a 48% share and intends to buy the other shareholders out, 91% of the stockholders have already agreed. The press has already labeled this as an countermeasure to fight Android. Nokia has also created Symbian foundation — it might mean more open Symbian." Symbian is "currently the world's dominant smartphone operating system (206 million phones shipped, 18.5 million in Q1 2008)," writes reader thaig, who points out coverage in the Economic Times. If this deal goes through as expected, the Foundation says that selected components of the Symbian operating system would be made available as open source at launch under the Eclipse Public License (EPL) 1.0 , with the rest of the platform following over the next two years.

38 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. This merger will bring a new meaning. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Funny

    to the phrase, "I'll just put my phone on vibrate."

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  2. They've been planning this for a long time by TuringTest · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nokia has been known for experimenting with open source in the recent years. This surely was a way to test the waters in community-driven development, to learn how to go along and specially what not to do.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    1. Re:They've been planning this for a long time by abigsmurf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually this licence seems much more DRM friendly and I get the impression that's why it's chosen. Having the biggest phone OS released on a non-GPL open source licence could be seen as a big "up yours" to the increasingly restrictive 'free' licence.

    2. Re:They've been planning this for a long time by edderly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think it upsets the 'whole' community. It's obviously bound to upset the say-alot/contribute-nothing crowd and Stallmanites.

      Sure, perhaps it's not the best idea to raise issues which aren't popular with a certain body of people.

      In the real world we have plenty of products which incorporate open source technologies and DRM. DRM will die for a lot better reasons than not being open source friendly.

    3. Re:They've been planning this for a long time by superash · · Score: 2, Informative

      Selected components will be made available as open source immediately. The rest will be open source by two years.

    4. Re:They've been planning this for a long time by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The GPL ensures the freedom of the all users, by restricting distributors from withholding the source from downstream users - a similar freedom those distributors enjoyed which allowed them access to the source code in their binaries in their first place. Do you honestly feel the minor "restriction" (more accurately a simple and easily fulfilled obligation) to not withhold what was freely shared to you is worse than the deliberate act of constructing DRM, to facilitate the imposition of any and every arbitrary whim of the distributor on all downstream users?

      In terms of the freedom of all users as a collective, rather than just the subset of users that want to insert DRM to restrict the freedom of all users, there is no Freer licence than the GPL. Having a set of rules to ensure freedom is a hell of a lot freer than a total absence of rules.

      take the example of the US constitution - what's freer - that set of "restrictions" or a total anarchy?

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    5. Re:They've been planning this for a long time by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 5, Informative

      Once again, if Nokia stops releasing Qt open source, the Free Qt agreement kicks in, and it's forced open (under BSD, IIRC) and given to KDE.

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    6. Re:They've been planning this for a long time by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes they bought "your" Qt just to close the evil Qt which they have been using for years. It is a major evil Nokia conspiracy.Like, they didn't want a common, proven framework for OS/CPU neutral future.

    7. Re:They've been planning this for a long time by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you honestly feel the minor "restriction" (more accurately a simple and easily fulfilled obligation) to not withhold what was freely shared to you [...]

      But that's not what the GPL is about. The GPL is about sharing what was given to you and anything you've done as well that might be (by a ridiculously broad brush) considered a "derivative work".

      You license something under the GPL when you want to influence what other people can do with their code. If all you want to do is keep your code "free", then the BSDL does just as good a job.

      In terms of the freedom of all users as a collective, rather than just the subset of users that want to insert DRM to restrict the freedom of all users, there is no Freer licence than the GPL. Having a set of rules to ensure freedom is a hell of a lot freer than a total absence of rules.

      The "freedom from" argument can be used to justify pretty much anything. You just need to pick your pet cause that "people" must have the "freedom from" being subjected to.

      take the example of the US constitution - what's freer - that set of "restrictions" or a total anarchy?

      To use but one obvious example, the US consitution does not offer people the "freedom from" hate speech. Ergo, a Constituation that outlawed hate speech would be "freer" because of that.

    8. Re:They've been planning this for a long time by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you honestly feel the minor "restriction" (more accurately a simple and easily fulfilled obligation) to not withhold what was freely shared to you is worse than the deliberate act of constructing DRM No, but that's not the restriction (and it's amusing to see the hypocritical redefinition of 'restriction' to "restriction"--if that's not telling, I don't know what is).

      The very real restriction is that someone is giving you code, not for free, but with the attached strings that if you want to improve the code and you want to share that product with others, you have to share your code as well. This is offensive and no more or less free than proprietary software.

      Continuing to share that which was already freely distributed is one thing; parasitically leeching your own efforts so that you, the creator, no longer have a say...well that's totally different.

      In terms of the freedom of all users as a collective, rather than just the subset of users that want to insert DRM to restrict the freedom of all users, there is no Freer licence than the GPL. Horseshit. That's a packaged phrase from the RMS army, but it's not true.

      The freest license most people are conversant in is the BSD license in some ways (MIT also has some interesting consequences).

      The GPL just swings the pendulum the other way. If proprietary licenses are all about the developers, the GPL is all about the users. Neither generalization is strictly true, but you people complain about closed-source licenses without tolerating the exact same complaints in your holy GPL. Frankly, the GPL isn't free at all.

      If it were truly a free release, a person could do anything s/he wanted with that code, including making internal improvements and releasing it under a proprietary license. That has no effect on the original, open code. It still exists. It's still available to anyone who wants it. There's no harm if the original intent was to release "free" code--if you have an expectation of profit, even if it's in the form of gaining free access to the work of another, it's not free. Reciprocity is an economically and intellectually binding force, neither free in spirit nor in price.

      The delicious hypocrisy is that GPL zealots are also often the loudest preachers of "copyright infringement doesn't hurt anyone"--and yet, if you dare close off your GPL improvements, they cry havoc.

    9. Re:They've been planning this for a long time by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You misunderstand the scope of the GPL. Despite its wording, the real effect it has is not on freedom of code, but on freedom of whole software projects. On the contrary, it is the supporters of the GPL who dramatically misunderstand its consequences. The GPL is not a project license, period.

      Your contention is interesting, but not supported by reality. The release of GPL code is not confined in any way to "the project", nor does the development of closed-off modifications have any impact on the fulfillment of the goal. Lack of progress is not the same thing as detriment.

      Even if the original, unmodified code is still present, the new code is competing in the same environment, and people in the project has no longer access to the enhancements - they must rebuild it for themselves. That is what freedom means. If you are releasing something into the wild for free, you must accept the possibility that someone will take it and improve it without sharing those improvements with you.

      The net result is that the free rider benefited from the community work, and now the community is left worse than it began. The community is no worse off. It simply isn't the recipient of benefits. Calling the licensee a "free rider" has the exact effect of proving that the license isn't about freedom at all, but merely a different sort of expectation of profit.

      The GPL was NEVER intended for that purpose. And thus it is not truly free, in any sense of the word. Excited zealotry notwithstanding, it's exactly as restrictive as a proprietary license, just in different ways to different people.

      Now that was pure trolling. GPL supporters are ALL for copyright enforcement You can't possibly say that with a straight face. Some of the biggest Slashdot GPL astroturfers are also vocal about copyright infringement not being a detriment, because those people never intended to pay for the product, ergo it is not a "lost sale", or that there is no loss because the creator still has everything he had to begin with (nevermind that that is demonstrably false, because the only thing the creator had was exclusivity, and that property has been taken without intent to return).

      That's not to say that there aren't those with a sane approach to the issue, but many of the posters in this thread are not among them.

      GPL advocacy crosses into demonstrably false zealotry when it proclaims to be the "freest" license. It simply is not even close. There's nothing wrong with the GPL or its goals, but there is no need to pretend it is something it isn't. The need to establish that false dichotomy seems to be preprogrammed into its supporters, though, because they can't seem to function without declaring proprietary licenses evil and theirs the Holy Lord of Software Licensing.

      The right tool for the right job. No software developer should begrudge any other the right to license their hard work and well-deserved property rights in the manner they see fit and to the extent they see fit. Trying to force GPL down everyone's throats is simply another kind of greed, no more or less noble than the peddlers of closed-source licenses.

  3. symbian development by Keruo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is symbian devel environment still considered as form of S/M or has it evolved into something usable during last 3 years?
    Haven't tried it since.

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    1. Re:symbian development by blackpaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Its become much *much* worse. The number of classes has increased to over 1700. Documentation is terrible. Code signing has immensely complicated everything.

      However python has become very capable with solid support from Nokia - we're using it for a commercial project. I suspect Nokia are planning to use it in place of the abomination Java has become on smartphones.

    2. Re:symbian development by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its become much *much* worse. The number of classes has increased to over 1700. Documentation is terrible. Code signing has immensely complicated everything.

      That had me thinking, actually.


      It's all well and good open-sourcing Symbian but if nobody can run their own home-compiled version because their mobile phone refuses to run an unsigned OS image, then you'll have a lot of trouble getting anyone outside of Nokia to put in any development effort.

  4. What about Sony? by neokushan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since UIQ is based on Symbian, how will this affect Sony Ericsson phones?
    Technically they're in direct competition with Nokia, so if they sell their stake in Symbian, will they come to some sort of licensing agreement or do you think we'll see Sony either develop their own OS or switch to Android/Windows Mobile?

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:What about Sony? by janslu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Sony Ericsson and Motorola will contribute the UIQ platform, and NTT DoCoMo will contribute its MOAP platform". They have already laid off more than half of UIQ employees. Seems like the end of UIQ.

    2. Re:What about Sony? by superash · · Score: 5, Informative

      FTA: "Nokia will contribute Symbian and its S60 software assets to the foundation, while other members will put in their UIQ and MOAP software to create a new joint Symbian platform in 2009."
      So, basically Sony Erricson will submit their UIQ code base to Symbian foundation, Nokia will sumbit S60 code base and NTTDoCoMo will give MOAP. Anyone in the Symbian foundation can use each others' UI framework on top of Symbian!

  5. Awareness... by superash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is an amazing move by the mobile giant(at least in Europe and Asia) and it again shows that they can and will react to what is going on around them. They accepted that they got their ass kicked by Apple/Google and they accepted the challenge which made them buy Trolltech(Qt) and now Symbian. And this buyout is understandable from Nokia's point of view as just last year they paid close to $250million to Symbian in licensing fees.

    Now the market is really heating up. After the whole Symbian OS and S60 goes open source Microsoft/Apple will be under lot of pressure to react to this. Even though lot of consumers will not bother if the platform is open or not, once touch devices are unveiled by Nokia, the number of applications that will be developed will be huge. Not to mention the contributions will be from all the major handset vendors (LG, Samsung, Motorola etc). For once I think we have all the evil corporates agree on something whcih looks like will make the consumers life easy.

    1. Re:Awareness... by glebd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As far as ease of development is concerned, at least Apple has nothing to fear. When iPhone SDK was out, I tried it and was amazed at how pleasant mobile device development can be, in stark contrast to Symbian OS SDK.

    2. Re:Awareness... by dave420 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Got their ass kicked? Was that a joke? Check out the market stats on Nokia phones, and you'll see how ridiculous that statement is.

    3. Re:Awareness... by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not ass kicked perhaps and iphone is still a complete prison compared to Symbian and even Windows mobile but one must admit that iPhone changed lots of things at Nokia and Symbian scene.

      When you enter http://www.s60.com/ , it says "Open to new features" which is exactly true. Now Nokia and Symbian is way more open source friendly and they even ship a POSIX framework and openly support Pyhton development which already creates wonders. Nobody would even imagine Nokia releasing a web server running in mobile phones along with all open source frameworks. As owner of the first ever Symbian hit, 7650 I can easily tell you.

      What they had to do is discipline the known 3rd party commercial developers and popular symbian shops to prevent them from shipping trivial software for ridiculous prices. The open source Symbian will generate a flow of good quality software to the OS and their smart phones.

  6. I dont understand...... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First breath, " OSS needs to be more DRM and hate the customer attitude friendly. We need to lock this stuff up so the customer can not do what they want!"

    Second Breath, "WE are buying the Symbian Phone OS, can we get some free developers on this? we will Open source it! Mmkay? thanks!"

    So which is it? did they retract their previous standce that DRM and locking was wonderful and needed?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I dont understand...... by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're using an open source licence that has no qualms about integration with DRM measures. OSS != free from DRM measures despite what some people would have you believe

    2. Re:I dont understand...... by unfunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Open Source" and "Digital Rights/Restrictions Management" are not mutually exclusive things - after all, isn't DRM on your iTunes library or whatever metaphorically the same as not allowing other users of your Linux box access to your files, or making them read-only for anyone that's not you?

      ...just... more restricted...

    3. Re:I dont understand...... by Candid88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DRM and closed/Open Source are not the same thing. As far as cellphone makers go, Nokia are one of the few advocates of open source software.

      They never said DRM was "wonderful", they said it was "necessary". They have a platform they want to bring content to, it's plainly obvious it's the content providers who are the cause of the "necessary" bit.

  7. Nokia had better talk to Blackwater by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hear the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army is even now plotting their counter-attack.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  8. Re:My moneys by Bandman · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's something wrong with my brain.

    Every time I read "Symbian" I see "simian" mentally...

    which of course lead to my reading your post as "My monkey's on google"

    I need to go back to bed.

  9. Observations by edderly · · Score: 5, Insightful


    1. Symbian OS is shipped in a whole bunch of phones and this move will ensure that current development projects based on the OS are more likely to continue because it became a whole lot cheaper to make a Symbian phone. $4 per unit doesn't sound like a lot but that is a huge margin for a phone manufacturer.

    2. The licensing issues for Symbian OS and various UI components will become vastly easier to resolve and make it easier to start a phone project. Symbian OS is currently a web of various source categorizations depending on your partner status level (developer/device creator/semi conductor partner), that doesn't even consider the semi-co base port components, multimedia infrastructure/codecs and the UI (Series 60, UIQ etc).

    The UI for Symbian products contains an extremely large amount of functionality you would expect in the base OS.

    In the end it's a damn sight easier to do business with tech companies on an open source basis.

    3. It raises interesting questions about whether there will be continued investment in Symbian oriented technologies. One technology question area that stands out is the kernel. The current Symbian OS kernel (called EKA2 by the way) is microkernel design optimised for the various ARM architectures with low latency features and a small memory footprint.

    Application processors for mobile processors are starting to look towards SMP designs in order to increase performance without incurring large power consumption penalties. The Symbian kernel and OS design doesn't currently support SMP, so it is possible that the Linux kernel is the direction to go in - obsoleting the EKA2 kernel at some point in the future for high end mobile devices.

    However it is probably worth pointing out that whilst the Linux kernel works well for SMP systems for scalable performance whether it does this AND manages to be good for power saving/consumption is possibly less proven.

    4. There are questions over how open is this environment? If a $1500 dollar license is required to get the source, is this open? Doesn't quite sound like it.

    5. How will this open source environment operate? There appear to be problems with open source projects which involve a dominant partner. IBM - Eclipse, Sun - Java,OpenOffice,MySQL are notable examples.

    Being open source is good for doing business but there are many practicalities to work out which make a technology good or bad open source.

    1. Re:Observations by dwater · · Score: 2, Informative

      > 4. There are questions over how open is this environment? If a $1500 dollar license is required to get the source, is this open? Doesn't quite sound like it.

      I think you'll find that this is only while they go through the opening procedure/etc.

      http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/news/item/7528_Symbian_Foundation_Says_Open_S.php

      --
      Max.
    2. Re:Observations by Ilgaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In Symbiand, if your application floods memory, it gets ass kicked by low memory framework. Only System Application marked applications are free of it but that marking requires a very strict certification process.
      Also lets not forget the user factor. If your app uses lots of ram and CPU, it doesn't have future in users handset. User says "oh crap" and reaches to "Application manager" to get rid of it.
      It is all open market with Symbian Inc. (foundation) governing the borders. It is how those die hard rivals work on same OS even before the "foundation". It is more like Java scene.

  10. Too little, too late by Etherized · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nokia is in a tough spot here. They're still the market leader for smartphones world wide, but Windows Mobile has been biting into that for a while now, and Android is just around the corner. I can't help but equate Symbian to PalmOS - a technical jumble that's frustrating to develop for and nearly impossible to maintain, being attacked by rapidly growing and technically superior competitors.

    In the case of Palm, they couldn't fix PalmOS *or* spool up a replacement in time, and they were thus relegated to Yet Another Windows Mobile vendor. I suppose Nokia is trying to avoid that fate by taking over Symbian and throwing enough resources at it to keep it alive and moving forward, but that can't be easy. Nokia also seems to take the Sun view of open source: if you can no longer make money from something, open source it for good will. That's fine, but given how crufty Symbian is and how many alternatives there are now I'm not sure what good that code is going to do anybody.

    Either way, I'm sure the other Symbian partners are happy to have it off their hands. Android is clearly the superior platform in the near-term, and divorcing themselves from Symbian allows them to focus their efforts there. Despite that, it's clear that Nokia is resisting Android - maybe to differentiate themselves from the competitors, maybe just to prevent obsoleting all of their existing Symbian resources - but it will be interesting to see if they can ultimately avoid becoming Yet Another Andriod Vendor themselves.

  11. Re:More Linux friendly.. by Radical+Emu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Imagine, a full Linux install (at least on phones like the N95 etc), running skype over wifi... I don't think the phone companies would like that.

    --
    I know there's a Hell, I've worked in retail.
  12. Re:My moneys by Poorcku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mod me down on this, but my money is on Nokia. I haven't seen a Google / Android phone yet.

    --
    I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
  13. SMP support by thaig · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are already working on SMP support as can be seen here:

    http://www.symbian.com/news/pr/2007/pr20079433.html

    --
    This is all just my personal opinion.
    1. Re:SMP support by Ilgaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Near all Symbian phones have dual CPU but you wouldn't want a SMP aware Symbian phone. Why? Because the main CPU does a very critical thing, call handling. Whatever happens in background must not prevent user from calling and especially emergency calls.

  14. This means nothing by jonwil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All the code in the world is useless until I can actually change the software on my phone and make it do what I want and not what some phone company thinks I should and shouldn't be able to do.

    Which is why the OpenMoko Neo FreeRunner is so good. Decent hardware for a phone (including touch screen, GPS, tri-band GSM, WiFi and Bluetooth) with almost all of the source for the phone being 100% open (and replaceable).
    The only closed bits are the GSM stack (which runs on a seperate baseband processor and talks to the host CPU via 100% documented open standards, all the stuff you need to know to talk to the baseband is documented and open), the driver for the GPS chip (people are reverse engineering it and making an open source replacement) and some of the fancy stuff to do with the GPU.

    And with regards to the GPU (which is aparently being dropped from the next model), the only closed thing is the official docs and specs provided to the OpenMoko team from the GPU vendor. The GPU vendor is quite happy for the OpenMoko team to produce and open source a driver for the GPU (and even a new set of specs for it), they just dont want any code or specs created by THEM being released publicly (having everything that goes public created by a 3rd party helps with legal issues I guess)

    The hardware is as open as they can legally go too. For example, they have released the same CAD drawings for the case and such as they themselves used to produce the molds for it. So if you want to make a new case in a color (or material) they dont offer (such as a rubber case so it can survive being dropped on the ground), the info is there.

  15. Re:More Linux friendly.. by Radical+Emu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Skype currently runs on the N800 etc Internet Tablets (which don't handle calls or SMS), not on the average cellphone It's a dream, but a Linux friendly Nokia, that could handle apps such as skype could mean people on bad/expensive/silly tarrifs have the ability to use skype from a normal cell/mobile phone, thus eliminating a lot of cost. Though, mentioning the idea to the world at large gives cell companies a headstart into stopping such developments! Still, would be nice to see 'Nokibuntu' or something one day!

    --
    I know there's a Hell, I've worked in retail.
  16. I hate Sybian by pw1972 · · Score: 2, Funny

    My wife loves her Sybian, and prefers it to me sometimes.