Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    It is a asymmetrical licensing system where one vendor gets the right to relicense under non-free terms but noone else has that right.
    Wrong. The author of the code keeps her copyright and can relicense it under any license she wants.

    Comment


    • #12
      Ubuntu non free http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...for-commercial

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
        It is a asymmetrical licensing system where one vendor gets the right to relicense under non-free terms but noone else has that right. Standard open source licenses like BSD or GPL don't have such unequal terms. So calling it somewhere in between is misleading. However it isn't straight out non-free licensing either.
        How does this compare to the fedora cla?
        https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...l/Licenses/CLA

        • 2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the Project:
        • (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative works; and,

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
          Ubuntu FOR ANDROID, genious. This project was unveiled more than one year ago, so by now everyone should know that they are having problems to release its source code. And this is the huge problem with mobile right now, patenting issues. This problem is happening because of Motorolla/Google, not Canonical/Ubuntu.

          Get a life and stop trolling.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by liam View Post
            How does this compare to the fedora cla?
            https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...l/Licenses/CLA
            To be fair, this CLA is not used anymore (see the notice at the top of the page).
            But yes, AFAIK it was quite similar to the Canonical CLA.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
              it's not Ubuntu. It's Ubuntu for Android (UfA) based on AOSP
              there is a big difference
              Ubuntu will remain free and open source they can't redistribute it under a commercial license

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Malizor View Post
                To be fair, this CLA is not used anymore (see the notice at the top of the page).
                But yes, AFAIK it was quite similar to the Canonical CLA.
                how about this
                https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...utor_Agreement
                and this
                Microsoft’s Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...munity.mspx#E3

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by benalib View Post
                  it's not Ubuntu. It's Ubuntu for Android (UfA) based on AOSP
                  there is a big difference
                  Ubuntu will remain free and open source they can't redistribute it under a commercial license


                  "No. UfA is a modified and reduced (in size) Ubuntu distro. We have modified packages and also new code/scripts that is needed to interact with Android. A new distro would have to redo all that work. You cannot just drop another one in"

                  "Will developers be able to make these additions to custom ROMs themselves?

                  cwayne18Ubuntu for Android

                  Many of the additions need to be made with the OEMs, so unfortunately not"

                  "Now for commercial versions of UfA, where we work with OEMs, we will respect whatever rules the OEM asks us to follow. Since Android is BSD licensed, it would be unlikely that we would be able to open source the commercial versions."

                  Closed Source!! Ubuntu

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Malizor View Post
                    So, you also think that BSD licences are non-free?
                    After all, software that use it can also be relicensed.
                    No it can't. Not by anyone other than the copyright holder.

                    You can use BSD-licensed code in proprietary projects, and publish it as binaries without releasing the source, even if you make changes in it, but the license of the code still stays the same, and you have to include the license notice to your (proprietary) software - it's why Mac OS includes the BSD license notice somewhere in its documentation.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by dee. View Post
                      No it can't. Not by anyone other than the copyright holder.

                      You can use BSD-licensed code in proprietary projects, and publish it as binaries without releasing the source, even if you make changes in it, but the license of the code still stays the same, and you have to include the license notice to your (proprietary) software - it's why Mac OS includes the BSD license notice somewhere in its documentation.
                      most of it's here? http://www.apple.com/opensource/

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X