Nokia Opens the S60 Browser Source Code

segphault writes "Nokia has released the source code of it's S60 WebKit browser for mobile devices. Based on the HTML rendering components used in Konqueror and Safari, the S60 WebKit has a multitude of advanced features designed specifically for web navigation on devices with small screens. Nokia decided to release the source code under the permissive BSD license in order to promote adoption by other mobile device companies. From the article: 'the power and scalability of WebKit-based browsers and the highly permissive license under which the S60 WebKit source code is available make it a good choice for companies that want to add mobile web browsing to their devices. I think it will be particularly interesting to see how this affects Opera, whose revenue primarily comes from distribution of its own virtually ubiquitous embedded browser.'"

Re:Are they not required to release it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Webkit is released under a "BSD-style license" [apple.com]. It's WebCore which is based on the LGPL... so in neither case would they be required to release the source of the browser, but they would have to release the source of any modification of webcore which they did...

Re:Is it really that good?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Is it really that good?
Yup. It renders pages just like Safari does. If you think that Opera's Java based browser is better than the Nokia browser then you are not using the one they've just open sourced.

Re:Are they not required to release it?

[MWelchUK]

From http://wiki.opendarwin.org/index.php/S60Webkit [opendarwin.org]:

"The MemoryManager, WebKit and Reindeer components are covered by the Nokia BSD license. The WebCore and JavaScriptCore components are covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). The Netscape Plug-in API is a ported version of the open source plug-in interface from Netscape Communications Corporation, which is covered by the Netscape Public License v1.1."

Re:Symbian 91. is a closed platform

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't be able to access the restricted APIs without a certificate regardless of what language you use. If you are just making a simple game then you probably not concerned about this.
Earlier versions of symbian didn't have this restriction. Because Symbian allows you to access all parts of the phone software, including call data and sms's. It is possible to write applications that do useful things like monitor your call costs and block spam SMSs.
The operators did not like their customers to have these features on their phone, not becuase of security reasons, but becuase they saw it as cutting into their profits. That's why they pressurised Nokia to restrict their APIs.

It is!

[xNstAble]

As other pointed out, it's likely you are not using the browser discussed here. It is available only on the S60 3rd edition, it is based on KHTML and it is a real breakthough in the mobile area.

Re:Symbian 91. is a closed platform

[S3D]

So I can't run Python code on Symbian 9.1 through Nokia Python ?

On the latest 9.1 phones Python interpreter is not included into installation. And you will not be able to install it yourself without Symbian Signing or having developer certificate on the phone.

Re:Symbian 91. is a closed platform

[Anonymous Coward]

At least for S60 platform, 3rd edition (based on Symbian 9.1) imposed limitations seem reasonable to considerable extent. Even completely unsigned applications can access many parts of the device by explicit installation-time approval of the user. One reasonably interesting "capability" (as they're called) is missing from this and needs signing, though: the Location API, which provides either network-based, or more often, GPS based location data. (Direct access to Bluetooth GPS module is available, though, but of course that is awkward and doesn't have the multiplexing benefit of the "true" location API.) For other capabilities that are restricted it makes considerable amount of sense not to allow just users decide if the capability should be provided, since most users can't really understand what rights the capability provides to running applications.

The cost of getting non-developer signature to an application is entirely different issue, as are the requirements for acceptable Symbian Signed applications in that context. Security-wise it's a great improvement, but it's certainly leaning away from hobbyist developers. If operators want to fuck up their customers' rights, that's entirely different issue. Such stance isn't enforced in any way by the Symbian 9 system nor S60 platform built on top of it.