With this I agree, and frankly, some heads should be rolling for that (but we know, that they never will). Anyway, putting old things aside, you see "subtle" difference between Jolla and Neo900, don't you? As per plans, Neo900 is going to be "our" device - born by cooperation between ~openmoko& friends and Maemo, with open hardware, and as open software as we like to port.

Now, Jolla is purely "mainstream" commercial effort with (probably) UI closed by design harmattan way, mostly closed hardware, etc. I say "probably" and "mostly" as, like all self-respecting mainstream commerce (irony intended), they're presenting us with constant marketing BS, instead of hard facts about device, interfaces, software licenses... With Neo900, we know what we're going for even before actual work from "Maemo side" started (it can only get better if possible, not worse, than was presented).

Last but not least, unlike failure with putting adverts for Jolla - where no one asked if it's really what Community want to do, for free - I don't see anything like that happening for Neo900. There are 2 threads for it, and there is task force forming, interested to port Maemo to Neo900 - all volunteer work, no one from Maemo "forced" anyone to work on this. Maemo isn't corporation, where "leaders" can re-assign manpower - only people interested themselves (and able to) are going to work on Maemo implementation for Neo900, and they're going to do it by own, independent decision.
---

summing it up, I just don't see any comparison. If someone want to port Debian to any random platform he is creating, he should be obliged to donate part of his income to Debian project? Absurd! He *may* want to do so, alongside further users of his hardware, but forcing to do so would be almost M$ way. what you're proposing is de facto licensing use of Fremantle (which isn't even our copyright, BTW).

/Estel