Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The X.Org Foundation Is Undecided About Mir

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    well Mir so far have minimal[if at all] contribution from outside Canonical developers and that will be for a foreseeable future, so in this case the CLA/FOSS licence is technically void since they can just put code in another repo and let rot the public one without much consequence after all they are the only ones putting code there

    so is kinda useless to fight technicalities at this point
    That's not about technicalities so much as fact. The FOSS(GPL 3) is not void. The Mir development code is publicly available at https://launchpad.net/mir. The development is public. If Canonical decides to change the licence to a proprietary one at 12:00 PM tomorrow, then you are free to fork any code that is available up to 11:59 AM under GPL 3 if you are so inclined. That means any contributions made by any contributor will be available for any one to use it. The proprietary version wouldn't be able to accept further contributions from the community under GPL 3. Therefore, there is no stealing of one's code by Canonical for a proprietary product.

    I hope that clears some things up.

    Regards

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
      1.) so far no but most of their projects were bit rotten or failed to gain any traction at all, so unlike this possible case there was absolutely no need to do so
      2.) not am aware of either [there could be cases outside the linux distro ubuntu scope]
      3.) no i actually used ubuntu for a while and like i said is not evil the dual license but that the risk is that canonical have a really bad track with their projects and now that they can realistically get big bucks from the mobile market it introduces an additional sense of risk for those who expect Mir to be a contender in the FOSS world[assuming is actually worked and released <--i doubt it][im rooting with wayland] since many doubt canonical will fight for copyleft rights in mobile sector if they have to face actual money loss from doing so. For example "hey canonical that new Brand X super cool phone that is hot right now require you to change your licenses cuz imagination don't feel legally secure of using your copyleft wrappers so do it or bye bye" or "Big American Carrier wanna do X and Y to mod their version of ubuntu phone or they reject it and they don't wanna push any code back to repos"

      as a note most community ppl including me give a rat ass about canonical projects and most of them never really leaved the ubuntu scope, so if canonical tomorrow do twist with their projects i doubt you see much pressure from FOSS ppl
      Thank you for your civilized reply. I was expecting just Yes/No answers since I wanted to deal only with facts. However, your detractors from each answer were leaning on the hypothetical.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
        That's not about technicalities so much as fact. The FOSS(GPL 3) is not void. The Mir development code is publicly available at https://launchpad.net/mir. The development is public. If Canonical decides to change the licence to a proprietary one at 12:00 PM tomorrow, then you are free to fork any code that is available up to 11:59 AM under GPL 3 if you are so inclined. That means any contributions made by any contributor will be available for any one to use it. The proprietary version wouldn't be able to accept further contributions from the community under GPL 3. Therefore, there is no stealing of one's code by Canonical for a proprietary product.

        I hope that clears some things up.

        Regards
        errrm that is exactly what we said ... but ok yes that is correct maybe we didnt explain it good enough

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
          Thank you for your civilized reply. I was expecting just Yes/No answers since I wanted to deal only with facts. However, your detractors from each answer were leaning on the hypothetical.
          well yes is too early and at this point even Mir is hypothetical, like i said before Mir is just skeleton code with some rendering support here and there and a bunch of skeleton code for many toolkit in canonical repos with 100% canonical employees commits[last time i checked their bazaar log]

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
            That's not about technicalities so much as fact. The FOSS(GPL 3) is not void. The Mir development code is publicly available at https://launchpad.net/mir. The development is public. If Canonical decides to change the licence to a proprietary one at 12:00 PM tomorrow, then you are free to fork any code that is available up to 11:59 AM under GPL 3 if you are so inclined. That means any contributions made by any contributor will be available for any one to use it. The proprietary version wouldn't be able to accept further contributions from the community under GPL 3. Therefore, there is no stealing of one's code by Canonical for a proprietary product.

            I hope that clears some things up.

            Regards
            I don't see how that works tho... Say I do the fork and the code that was contributed up to 11:59 is still licensed under the GPL. That means that any code that is used under the new license that was contributed up until 11:59 is still bound by the GPL. Any code written after that would not be. The only possible way to aviod a GPL violation would be to replace all of the code that was written before 11:59 with new caode that was written after that.

            The fact that GPL code is being used in a proprietary format is itself a GPL violation. Once it's closed who's to say what changes were made? The GPL requires that modifications be made public. If they continue developing the same code base then that in fact does qualify as a violation. The only way to aviod the violation is to replace all existing code with new code.

            EDIT: If the fork continues developing on the same code base then they are making changes, and the GPL requires changes also be GPL. It is the entire premise of the copyleft.
            Last edited by duby229; 03-19-2013, 04:30 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              No problem.

              Originally posted by duby229 View Post
              I don't see how that works tho... Say I do the fork and the code that was contributed up to 11:59 is still licensed under the GPL. That means that any code that is used under the new license that was contributed up until 11:59 is still bound by the GPL. Any code written after that would not be. The only possible way to aviod a GPL violation would be to replace all of the code that was written before 11:59 with new caode that was written after that.

              The fact that GPL code is being used in a proprietary format is itself a GPL violation. Once it's closed who's to say what changes were made? The GPL requires that modifications be made public. If they continue developing the same code base then that in fact does qualify as a violation. The only way to aviod the violation is to replace all existing code with new code.

              EDIT: If the fork continues developing on the same code base then they are making changes, and the GPL requires changes also be GPL. It is the entire premise of the copyleft.
              The problem with double-licenses is that it is never clear which the dominant one is. I don't have the time and will to read through the CLA, but there sure are ways to block the GPL, especially when you consider how easy it is to invalidate copyleft-licenses.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                I don't see how that works tho... Say I do the fork and the code that was contributed up to 11:59 is still licensed under the GPL. That means that any code that is used under the new license that was contributed up until 11:59 is still bound by the GPL. Any code written after that would not be. The only possible way to aviod a GPL violation would be to replace all of the code that was written before 11:59 with new caode that was written after that.

                The fact that GPL code is being used in a proprietary format is itself a GPL violation. Once it's closed who's to say what changes were made? The GPL requires that modifications be made public. If they continue developing the same code base then that in fact does qualify as a violation. The only way to aviod the violation is to replace all existing code with new code.

                EDIT: If the fork continues developing on the same code base then they are making changes, and the GPL requires changes also be GPL. It is the entire premise of the copyleft.
                Not the case. Canonical is the owner of the code they contribute so they have the right to use that code under any licence they want to even if it was GPL. That is the advantage Canonical gains from the CLA. They get the right to use your code in any way they want to which e.g relicensing it.

                That is why any contributor should read the CLA and understand before they sign it and contribute to any project that is under Canonical's CLA.

                If a contributor is okay with Canonical using their code in that way, then they sign and contribute. If they are not okay with that, then they do not sign and do not contribute to the project.

                I suggest you read Canonical's CLA to better understand how it works.

                Canonical's CLA is not a code licence like GPL or BSD. It is a contract which if you agree to and sign gives Canonical the right to use your contributions in any way they want.

                The CLA in no way circumvents the GPL.

                Regards!
                Last edited by jayrulez; 03-19-2013, 05:07 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  CLA angle(s), both sides.

                  I've never contributed a line to the Linux kernel, but knowing that dead people hold the copyrights for some pieces (nearly) guarantees me that it will never be closed. (It's unlikely that someone could code around those contributions AND get everyone to sign something.)

                  A CLA could cause a LibreOffice-like split unless it's owned by a stable foundation like FSF (which is different than a company in that it's not owned/bought/sold except in ways that adhere to strict bylaws).

                  That being said, an early LibreOffice-like split of Mir:
                  - before usability, means it dies & more Wayland focus,
                  - after mass-adoption means the split wins (like LibreOffice did).

                  So I see little concern in contributing as worst-case is either a quick play-out or LibreOffice-style success.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
                    Not the case. Canonical is the owner of the code they contribute so they have the right to use that code under any licence they want to even if it was GPL. That is the advantage Canonical gains from the CLA. They get the right to use your code in any way they want to which e.g relicensing it.

                    That is why any contributor should read the CLA and understand before they sign it and contribute to any project that is under Canonical's CLA.

                    If a contributor is okay with Canonical using their code in that way, then they sign and contribute. If they are not okay with that, then they do not sign and do not contribute to the project.

                    I suggest you read Canonical's CLA to better understand how it works.

                    Canonical's CLA is not a code licence like GPL or BSD. It is a contract which if you agree to and sign gives Canonical the right to use your contributions in any way they want.

                    The CLA in no way circumvents the GPL.

                    Regards!

                    It's true that I havent read the CLA yet, so maybe I'm just not seeing the whole picture. But the point of the GPL is that it doesnt matter who owns the code. Thats the entire reason for the copyleft. I could own it, you could own it, microsoft could own it and it still wouldnt matter. The GPL does -NOT- protect the author or the owner. It is designed for the purpose of protecting the code. It doesnt matter what the authors or the owners want to do. If a code base is licensed GPL then the terms of the GPL need to be abided by. The owner of the code can't simply decide that the terms of the GPL don't apply to itself. The GPL specifically states that in no uncertain terms.

                    EDIT: Again that is the whole point for the copyleft. you can't simply decide that it doesnt apply to you. It doesnt protect you, it protects the code. It doesnt matter if you make people sign over the rights to the code to you. The GPL doesnt protect you. It doesnt matter if you are the owner or author or whatever else. You don't matter, only the code does.

                    And you are right that the CLA does not circumvent the GPL. But if canonical decides to change the license from GPL to something else and then doesnt make changes that they made to the GPL code base public then they are violating the GPL. The only way to avoid that would be to replace all of the existing GPL code.

                    It doesnt matter who owns the code whether it is you or canonical or god. Once it is licensed GPL then the terms need to be abided by.
                    Last edited by duby229; 03-19-2013, 06:37 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
                      Not the case. Canonical is the owner of the code they contribute so they have the right to use that code under any licence they want to even if it was GPL. That is the advantage Canonical gains from the CLA. They get the right to use your code in any way they want to which e.g relicensing it.

                      That is why any contributor should read the CLA and understand before they sign it and contribute to any project that is under Canonical's CLA.

                      If a contributor is okay with Canonical using their code in that way, then they sign and contribute. If they are not okay with that, then they do not sign and do not contribute to the project.

                      I suggest you read Canonical's CLA to better understand how it works.

                      Canonical's CLA is not a code licence like GPL or BSD. It is a contract which if you agree to and sign gives Canonical the right to use your contributions in any way they want.

                      The CLA in no way circumvents the GPL.

                      Regards!
                      For instance, when khr has changed the wayland's license (two times if I'm not wrong), he has asked the permission to all the contributors, because the others devs have not signed any CLA.
                      Same story about the linux vs nvida saga:
                      Back in January was when a request was made by NVIDIA to change the DMA-BUF symbols for dealing with the shared buffers to be exported under EXPORT_SYMBOL rather than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. At the moment with the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL usage, DMA-BUF can't be used by non-GPL kernel drivers
                      In that case, some devs were ok with the nvidia request others did not, the results was NO.
                      With the CLA Canonical can change the license of the project without consult the others contributors at all.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                        It's true that I havent read the CLA yet, so maybe I'm just not seeing the whole picture. But the point of the GPL is that it doesnt matter who owns the code. Thats the entire reason for the copyleft. I could own it, you could own it, microsoft could own it and it still wouldnt matter. The GPL does -NOT- protect the author or the owner. It is designed for the purpose of protecting the code. It doesnt matter what the authors or the owners want to do. If a code base is licensed GPL then the terms of the GPL need to be abided by. The owner of the code can't simply decide that the terms of the GPL don't apply to itself. The GPL specifically states that in no uncertain terms.

                        EDIT: Again that is the whole point for the copyleft. you can't simply decide that it doesnt apply to you. It doesnt protect you, it protects the code. It doesnt matter if you make people sign over the rights to the code to you. The GPL doesnt protect you. It doesnt matter if you are the owner or author or whatever else. You don't matter, only the code does.

                        And you are right that the CLA does not circumvent the GPL. But if canonical decides to change the license from GPL to something else and then doesnt make changes that they made to the GPL code base public then they are violating the GPL. The only way to avoid that would be to replace all of the existing GPL code.

                        It doesnt matter who owns the code whether it is you or canonical or god. Once it is licensed GPL then the terms need to be abided by.
                        That is not quite right. The author of any piece of GPL work can license the code under any other licence after the fact.
                        Last edited by jayrulez; 03-19-2013, 06:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          As long as the terms of the GPL code base are abided by. You can't simply decide that the GPL doesnt apply to you.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by valeriodean View Post
                            For instance, when khr has changed the wayland's license (two times if I'm not wrong), he has asked the permission to all the contributors, because the others devs have not signed any CLA.
                            Same story about the linux vs nvida saga:

                            In that case, some devs were ok with the nvidia request others did not, the results was NO.
                            With the CLA Canonical can change the license of the project without consult the others contributors at all.
                            Those are good examples. Another one is with the VLC fiasco.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                              As long as the terms of the GPL code base are abided by. You can't simply decide that the GPL doesnt apply to you.
                              You are either talking about something else or you did not understand what I said.

                              Let me make it as simple as I possibly can and see if that clear things up for you.


                              Say duby229 creates a text editor named "Note". All source code was written by duby229.
                              duby229 releases note along with the source code under GPL3 licence.

                              Evil corporation Xgrim contacts duby229 and expresses interested in using "Note" as the base for their vile product "NoteMachina" to commit equally vile acts.
                              duby229 has the freedom to give the code to Xgrim under a BSD licence for a hefty sum where Xgrim can make modifications to create "NoteMachina" without contributing the modifications back to "Note" or duby229.

                              Xgrim did not violate the GPL because the owner/author of the code licensed the code to them under a BSD licence and they are not obligated to contribute changes back.

                              Comprehend now?

                              Year 2015:

                              Now say jayrulez contributes code to "Note".

                              Evil corporation Bisq approaches duby229 in order to use "Note"'s source to base their product "NoteFang" on.
                              duby229 cannot give the code to Bisq because he is not the sole holder of the copyright to "Note".
                              Therefore as long as Bisq uses code from Note in NoteFang, all changes must be made available by Bisq as long as NoteFang is distributed.

                              duby229 is not happy with this so he builds a time machine and goes back to year 2014 and implements a CLA for the "Note" project where by signing, the contributer assigns the copyright of his contributions to duby229.

                              Evil corporation Bisq approaches duby229 in order to use "Note"'s source to base their product "NoteFang" on.
                              duby229 can give the code to Bisq because he is holder of the copyright to "Note".

                              Understand?
                              Last edited by jayrulez; 03-19-2013, 07:10 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
                                You are either talking about something else or you did not understand what I said.

                                Let me make it as simple as I possibly can and see if that clear things up for you.


                                Say duby229 creates a text editor named "Note". All source code was written by duby229.
                                duby229 releases note along with the source code under GPL3 licence.

                                Evil corporation Xgrim contacts duby229 and expresses interested in using "Note" as the base for their vile product "NoteMachina" to commit equally vile acts.
                                duby229 has the freedom to give the code to Xgrim under a BSD licence for a hefty sum where Xgrim can make modifications to create "NoteMachina" without contributing the modifications back to "Note" or duby229.

                                Xgrim did not violate the GPL because the owner/author of the code licensed the code to them under a BSD licence and they are not obligated to contribute changes back.

                                Comprehend now?
                                The GPL doesnt protect the owner of the code... Or the name of the code... or the version of the code.... It protects the -ACTUAL- code. If the BSD licensed product is using code that is protected by the GPL then the terms of the GPL must still be abided by. The only way to avoid that would be to replace the GPL protected code.

                                It doesnt matter what the owner of the code wants to do. Once it is licensed GPL then it is protected by its terms. You can't just decide that it doesnt apply to you.

                                EDIT: The copyright holder doesnt have any rights under the terms of the GPL. It doesnt protect them. It is a copyleft license. The point and purpose of it is to protect the code. If you can show that the actual code is being used in a way that violates the GPL then it doesnt matter what the copyright holder wanted to do it is still a violation. The copyright holder can relicense as BSD, but if the actual code used in the BSD license is also licensed GPL, then the terms of the GPL must still be abided by.
                                Last edited by duby229; 03-19-2013, 07:25 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X