Sure, I can try asking Stskeeps about it.

OK, Stskeeps said that so far it's closed (UI and core applications) but what's going to be in the future isn't known. I take it, that with the release the stuff will be closed, which is sad. So Firefox OS will present itself with fully open stack, and Sailfish will be at a disadvantage.

Like I said, bait and switch.

Switch what? AFAIK it was never the intention to make the core apps open. I'm not allergic to closed source software. I'd like to see the option to swap the closed bits of software (or any bit, for that matter) for alternatives. That's freedom. But closed source is fine with me, if it provides a good UX.

Firefox and Ubuntu might be fully open, and I do prefer that (typing this on Firefox on Kubuntu), but I don't think Firefox will provide a very good UX nor high-end platform like Harmattan and Sailfish; webtech is just too limited for that. Ubuntu might do well though, given that they use a very similar platform as Sailfish/Harmattan.

I am allergic to closed protocols though.

They were ambigous about future plans and still are. But in short term it seems to remain closed. I personally find it troublesome for several reasons. Harmattan mistakes shouldn't be repeated (unusable code since it's closed when the platform is abandoned), no effort sharing and etc. Nemo for example can't benefit from core applications of Sailfish if they'll remain closed.

In the best case, it would be good to get Jolla to express a will to open stuff eventually and to make a roadmap for that. In the worst case it will remain closed.

WOW, your summary is quite negative, given what I have read on IRC, while following your conversation with Stskeeps.

http://pastebin.com/bhxnjm1q

Not negative, but concerned. In short Stskeeps said that now things are closed, and future is unknown, but it's not easy to make things open. If you want, make a formal inquiry to Jolla about opening things. Did I sum it up right?

You can assume a few things (but again, these are just assumptions):
1. At the release core applications and UI will remain closed.
2. Jolla is undecided yet about future.

Why I find it concerning:
1. No sharing of effort with Nemo about UI and applications. Ideally I'd even prefer Nemo and Sailfish to merge into one. Or Nemo to become what Fedora is for RHEL (note all of them are open). With Sailfish being closed - it's impossible.
2. Harmattan pitfalls risk.
3. Disadvantage in comparison to fully open systems (Firefox OS).

I'm not trying to be negative, I'm trying to analyze the issue objectively.

But isn't that situation lots of better than Android, Tizen, Harmattan and Maemo?

Core and MW are developed in the open and are open source.

And I don't see that much of benefit for Nemo if Sailfish apps would be open, as Nemo seems to move to own QML components. They still can share the middleware for example the email framework or social plugins. Just UI would be duplicate. But better a duplicate UI, as apps that don't fit into the UI/UX.

Thats where Nemo UI/UX will go: http://play.qwazix.com/grog/

Sure I can see your point that everything open would be ideal. But how should their product be successfull? Copycats would take it all.

Morpog: Success of the product doesn't necessarily depend on it being closed. Firefox OS is going to be successful to some degree. At least I hope it will.

The fact that Nemo needs a separate set of components isn't a good thing. It's caused precisely because Sailfish development is rather closed (even though Silica are supposedly open). And it's precisely the duplication of effort that could be avoided.

Developing an e-mail client is not trivial. Even if it's just a UI. It's a serious effort. Making two is going to be twice as hard. So I see completely no point in keeping that kind of stuff closed.

this is indeed looking pretty good to me right now

http://www.ubuntu.com/phone