Wayland 1.2.0 Released, Joined By Weston Compositor

[Awesomeness]

However insignificant you see it, the patent grant for certain implementations puts further restrictions on what a developer is allowed to do, and as such the OSI has still not approved it as an open source license. These restrictions would also make those components licensed under the Flora license to be GPL incompatible, which would stop that code being used in a majority of FOSS projects.

I suggest that you actually browse the code.
The Flora License is only used for a handful of front-end applications in the /apps/home repositories. It makes no sense to incorporate that code into GPL projects anyway.

The back-end framewors are all under regular free licenses (Apache, BSD/MIT, (L)GPL). Random examples:

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=framework/telephony/libtcore.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=framework/system/sensor-framework.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=framework/uifw/ecore.git;a=blob_plain;f=COPYING;hb=HEAD

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=platform/upstream/ofono.git;a=blob;f=COPYING;h=3912109b5cd65a68039d473c11c9f7ac2303e06d;hb=HEAD

[intellivision]

I suggest that you actually browse the code.
The Flora License is only used for a handful of front-end applications in the /apps/home repositories. It makes no sense to incorporate that code into GPL projects anyway.

The back-end framewors are all under regular free licenses (Apache, BSD/MIT, (L)GPL). Random examples:

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=framework/telephony/libtcore.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=framework/system/sensor-framework.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=framework/uifw/ecore.git;a=blob_plain;f=COPYING;hb=HEAD

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=plat...03e06d;hb=HEAD

That still doesn't excuse their use, there may be ways to incorporate that code into other projects and the Flora license still actively prevents the integration of that code into projects that want to remain OSI compliant.
Also, as mentioned before, the official SDK is still released under a very restrictive license compared to most other open source projects.

[Awesomeness]

That still doesn't excuse their use

As if the authors owed you anything?

the official SDK is still released under a very restrictive license compared to most other open source projects

Qt Creator is enough.

[jalyst]

A side note, EFL is still present in Tizen, it is used as the backend to the OSP.

Yep, aware of that much....

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, time will tell how truly central native development is compared to say Sailfish or Ubuntu.
A proper analysis will be possible within approx. 9mth, by looking at the 3rd-party sw/app make-up of the respective projects.

I suggest that you actually browse the code.
The Flora License is only used for a handful of front-end applications in the /apps/home repositories. It makes no sense to incorporate that code into GPL projects anyway.
The back-end framewors are all under regular free licenses (Apache, BSD/MIT, (L)GPL). Random examples:

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=framework/telephony/libtcore.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=framework/system/sensor-framework.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=framework/uifw/ecore.git;a=blob_plain;f=COPYING;hb=HEAD

https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=plat...03e06d;hb=HEAD

Sounding much more like the Sailfish approach (Jolla's flavour) than I thought was the case for Tizen.
From a code perspective I mean, I was aware of other shortcomings...*
Jolla Sailfish will also have restricted core components/apps, making it easier for Jolla to license their version of it.

*considering their self-lauded labelling of "tah uber open-source mobile dev platform"

[intellivision]

As if the authors owed you anything?

If they're marketing a product as an open source platform, especially if it's made with conjunction with the Linux Foundation, then the least they could do is provide all components of the OS under at least an OSI approved license.

Qt Creator is enough.

A platform that markets itself as open source shouldn't have to rely on third party SDKs to remain open source.
Why should developers have to rely on a non-official SDK if they cannot adhere to some of the requirements e.g. the use of the SDK on smartphones and similar devices that aren't defined as personal computers?

[jayrulez]

If they're marketing a product as an open source platform, especially if it's made with conjunction with the Linux Foundation, then the least they could do is provide all components of the OS under at least an OSI approved license.

Only the OSP reference applications are under the Flora license you are talking about and they make no sense outside the context of tizen. Any developer worth their weight in paper does not need to use these.

It is just a license as any other license. It is similar as how there is a lot of GPL code out there than cannot be used by many other projects in which that code would be useful yet it is deemed an open source licence.

A platform that markets itself as open source shouldn't have to rely on third party SDKs to remain open source.
Why should developers have to rely on a non-official SDK if they cannot adhere to some of the requirements e.g. the use of the SDK on smartphones and similar devices that aren't defined as personal computers?

The SDK IS OPEN SOURCE. Installing the SDK on phones and tablets and other devices that are not PCs is not a requirement to create Tizen applications with the SDK so it should not be an issue for Tizen application developers.

There is a similar clause which prevents you from doing the same with the Android SDK.

From the Android SDK Licence:

3.3 You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by this License Agreement. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not: (a) copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK; or (b) load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK.

3.4 You agree that you will not take any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android, including but not limited to distributing, participating in the creation of, or promoting in any way a software development kit derived from the SDK.

Some people try to create an issue where there is none.

[Awesomeness]

If they're marketing a product as an open source platform, especially if it's made with conjunction with the Linux Foundation, then the least they could do is provide all components of the OS under at least an OSI approved license.

Linux Foundation and OSI are not the same. The OSI does not have sole authority to define what open source is and its approval is not required.

A platform that markets itself as open source shouldn't have to rely on third party SDKs to remain open source.

GCC and all required frameworks are part of Tizen (incl. Qt 5.0) and they're all FOSS:

https://review.tizen.org/git/

Why should developers have to rely on a non-official SDK if they cannot adhere to some of the requirements e.g. the use of the SDK on smartphones and similar devices that aren't defined as personal computers?

SDKs are just convenience products on top of the actual compiler.

[dee.]

The SDK IS OPEN SOURCE. Installing the SDK on phones and tablets and other devices that are not PCs is not a requirement to create Tizen applications with the SDK so it should not be an issue for Tizen application developers.

The Tizen SDK is not open source. It is not free software and it is not FOSS. It doesn't grant the user the four freedoms, therefore, it's not free and it's not open. The Tizen SDK places restrictions on ways the user is allowed to use the software, and denies the user the right to modify it. All of this goes against the idea of FOSS.

It has open source parts, but the license the SDK is released under is not an open source license.

It's quite interesting though, that the SDK has many GPL parts. The distributors try to get around this by adding in a clause to the SDK license, that basically says "any part of the SDK that is under an open source license, is distributed under that license, which overrules the SDK license" - so you get to abide by GPL on the GPL parts, but when it comes to the SDK as a whole, you should abide by a restrictive, non-open license...? That just seems to me like they've found a loophole in the GPL and are abusing it. Not sure how legal it is, but it's certainly not ethical.

[TheBlackCat]

The Tizen SDK is not open source. It is not free software and it is not FOSS.

FOSS and open source are not the same thing. FOSS is a subset of open source.

[dee.]

FOSS and open source are not the same thing. FOSS is a subset of open source.

The difference is merely ideological. In any practical sense they're the same thing. It's all about the license, and the Tizen SDK is not under an open source license.