The Nokia 770 should be a USB master by default, not a USB slave. And it should supply power (as every USB master must). Before you get started, I understand the drawbacks. Whenever you have something which can suck your battery down, it WILL suck your battery down. However, as it currently stands, any 770 peripheral device (e.g. mouse, keyboard, or GPS) whether USB or bluetooth must have its own battery. The most desirable case is when both batteries run down at the same speed. If one battery lasts longer than the other, then you are carrying around a battery which is either more expensive or heavier than necessary. I call this problem "battery life mismatch".
If the 770 was always a USB master, then you could, with no muss fuss or bother, simply connect a USB keyboard. Right now, there aren't many (any?) compact/folding USB keyboards. However, Nokia would probably love it if third-party manufacturers started creating peripheral devices. It would create buzz for the 770 and help expand the market.
Somebody could also make a thumb keyboard whose top half was shaped like the 770's case. When you slide the 770 into the keyboard, the USB connector is automatically engaged, and the keyboard is immediately usable.
USB master would also allow you to create a docking product, which would consist of a powered USB hub and slide-in case which holds the 770 at a slight angle. Into the USB hub you would plug a keyboard, mouse, hard drive, Ethernet, or any one of a hundred other USB devices.
USB master would let you exchange files using a USB thumb drive, which are widely available at whatever capacity or price point you want.
posted at: 20:28 | path: /770 | permanent link to this entry
Are you interested in giving away your source but not your profit stream? Do you want to gain the benefits of having public source code while keeping your code proprietary? I don't think that's possible. You can do it, but you can't call it Open Source. Legally, you can, because nobody holds a trademark on Open Source. However, most people understand Open Source software to be software which complies with the Open Source Definition. You run the risk of confusing the marketplace if you call your software Open Source and it doesn't. Confused customers don't spend money.
If you really want to give away your source and give up the benefits of full Open Source compliance, I encourage you to use the term "Source Available". It describes software which is somewhat open source, but which doesn't comply with the Open Source Definition.
The Open Source Definition isn't a manifesto, or statement of philosophical principles. It's an attempt to describe the freedoms you need to give to users in order to get them to contribute improvements back to you. It doesn't describe the process perfectly, but it captures most of the gains. If you don't comply with the Open Source Definition, you give up most of the benefits of producing Open Source software.
posted at: 17:39 | path: /opensource | permanent link to this entry