Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

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

  • #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


            • #21
              Originally posted by mendieta View Post
              So, the article states:


              (emphasys mine). So, are they planning to switch to systemd? (I certainly hope so). Or am I reading too far between the lines?
              They currently have no plans. At the moment they have been hacking some parts of systemd into upstart, such as logind.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by benalib View Post
                Fedora's agreement does not require copyright assignment nor any kind of sublicensing. The "default " license is MIT but you can choose to contribute under any free and open source license you want.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by nll_a View Post
                  Wrong. The author of the code keeps her copyright and can relicense it under any license she wants.
                  Not wrong at all. The author has only the ability to license his/her own code. The commercial vendor whom you granted a broad license has the sole right to sub license the entire codebase under non-free terms.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                    So, the article states:


                    (emphasys mine). So, are they planning to switch to systemd? (I certainly hope so). Or am I reading too far between the lines?
                    They might be. They are already using parts of systemd. I'd say it depends on what Debian does. If they switch to systemd, Ubuntu might also do that. But, of course, for now they are sticking with Upstart.

                    Originally posted by benalib View Post
                    and this
                    Microsoft’s Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...munity.mspx#E3
                    What about it? It just says they won't sue over patents.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                      They might be. They are already using parts of systemd. I'd say it depends on what Debian does. If they switch to systemd, Ubuntu might also do that. But, of course, for now they are sticking with Upstart.
                      Debian will not switch to systemd do to it's BSD kernels etc

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                        Not wrong at all. The author has only the ability to license his/her own code. The commercial vendor whom you granted a broad license has the sole right to sub license the entire codebase under non-free terms.
                        The less people have that "right" the better. Merely contributing to a project shouldn't give anyone permission to relicense the whole thing.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by nll_a View Post
                          The less people have that "right" the better. Merely contributing to a project shouldn't give anyone permission to relicense the whole thing.
                          That really depends on the license. With a BSD licensed project, everyone has the right to sub license as they see fit even without them being a contributor but with these sort of agreements, only the commercial vendor has the right to sublicense the whole project and noone else does. That is called asymmetrical licensing.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
                            Debian will not switch to systemd do to it's BSD kernels etc
                            That isn't necessarily true. They could switch to systemd and continue to ship both systemd native unit files and sysv init scripts for compatibility with niche ports of Debian to other kernels.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Why is SystemD better than Upstart exactly?

                              I hold no special love for Canonical, especially after MIR, but SystemD is as bad as, say, X. It is almost an entire operating system. SystemD is the anti-thesis of Linux - it tries to do everything (remember udev?). As far as I'm concerned SystemD is the worse solution, at least until it becomes modular *for real*.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by amehaye View Post
                                As far as I'm concerned SystemD is the worse solution, at least until it becomes modular *for real*.
                                systemd is very modular. In fact, Ubuntu is already using parts of systemd without using it as the init system which proves this. http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html "If you build systemd with all configuration options enabled you will build 69 individual binaries. These binaries all serve different tasks, and are neatly separated for a number of reasons. For example, we designed systemd with security in mind, hence most daemons run at minimal privileges (using kernel capabilities, for example) and are responsible for very specific tasks only, to minimize their security surface and impact. Also, systemd parallelizes the boot more than any prior solution. This parallization happens by running more processes in parallel. Thus it is essential that systemd is nicely split up into many binaries and thus processes. In fact, many of these binaries[1] are separated out so nicely, that they are very useful outside of systemd, too."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X