Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

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

  • #31
    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.
    Thanks for pointing that out. I'm glad they removed that one clause.

    Comment


    • #32
      It's interesting that the Ubuntu-related news stories tend to get the threads with the most posts.

      Threads from stories about other distros = crickets.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Malizor View Post
        The contributor also has this right.
        AFAIK, he can also grant it to the whole world if he wants (eg. by publishing the patch with a BSD or MIT licence).
        The contributor has this right only for the fraction he/she commited. Canonical has this right for everything. That's still asymmetrical.
        A patch is considered derivative work, so the only way to change the license would be all of the contributors agreeing, or being Canonical. The first is very unlikely, and the patch without the code base is useless. If there is only one contributor, which is the case where "the contributor has this right, too", then there's no reason to sign someone else's CLA.

        Originally posted by benalib View Post
        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
        The Fedora CLA you quote only says it defaults to MIT if you don't specify a license. If you do, then it will be respected, and nobody can relicense it.

        On the openSUSE thing, I didn't read it, but assuming it's some kind of asymmetrical CLA, the fact other distros take non free approaches doesn't alleviate the problem on Canonical. Just pointing fingers won't make Canonical's CLA more free or more symmetrical.

        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.
        And how does that lead to a CLA? Just stick with GPL and that's it, if your concern is that there will exist proprietary relicensing. If there's a CLA assigning such right to a company, it's because they do want to do that.

        Originally posted by johnc View Post
        It's interesting that the Ubuntu-related news stories tend to get the threads with the most posts.

        Threads from stories about other distros = crickets.
        You will always get more discussion when there is conflict, so...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by nll_a View Post
          Where the fuck did you take that from?



          http://www.canonical.com/contributors
          Honton has been spewing this line for a while now. He is on a mission to bash.
          And totally ignoring the fact that
          1) As per Richard Stallman You are FREE to relicense GPL software
          2) the FSF demands you submit to a CLA and also to sign over the copyright to them.

          SO it would seem that gcc and the entire gnu userspace runs afoul of Honton's reasoning in his crusade to bash others.
          And we know he's going to try in a fruitless attempt to convice us by splitting hairs that the FSF CLA is good but Canonical CLA is bad.
          Its a total red herring arguement. Its all GPL3.....The End.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
            Debian will not switch to systemd do to it's BSD kernels etc
            Most debian developers/users consider these alternate kernels to be "toy projects", and they won't really impact debian's decision to use systemd or not. Very, very few people use these alternate kernels. Afaik debian is actually moving towards using systemd.

            For example here's a post from a debian dev who definitely seems to believe debian should switch to systemd: http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg...-portable.html

            They also conducted a user poll (which the dev mentioned in that post), and ~62% of debian users that responded supported debian using systemd. I would say its a good bet that debian will switch to systemd in the future, its just the sensible thing to do.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
              Most debian developers/users consider these alternate kernels to be "toy projects", and they won't really impact debian's decision to use systemd or not. Very, very few people use these alternate kernels. Afaik debian is actually moving towards using systemd.

              For example here's a post from a debian dev who definitely seems to believe debian should switch to systemd: http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg...-portable.html

              They also conducted a user poll (which the dev mentioned in that post), and ~62% of debian users that responded supported debian using systemd. I would say its a good bet that debian will switch to systemd in the future, its just the sensible thing to do.
              i see he's not a fan of canonical this will be really good if they put systemd into Debian it will let them use the full power of the upcoming kernels systemd is becoming more intregrated into the kernel did you see the guys who are forking Debian? it's going to have a 9mo release and have updated packages

              Comment


              • #37
                Cheers to Ubuntu for being sane and not drinking the SystemD kool aid. I would never have thought that I would ever prefer Ubuntu over Arch Linux or OpenSuse but here we are.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                  ...
                  For example here's a post from a debian dev who definitely seems to believe debian should switch to systemd: http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg...-portable.html
                  ...
                  For those who are interested, that Debian dev spoke at DebConf recently:
                  http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...s_debunked.ogv
                  and
                  http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...th_systemd.ogv

                  Lennart also spoke:
                  http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...he_default.ogv

                  The whole list of videos:
                  http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...ebconf13/high/
                  Last edited by mark45; 08-24-2013, 03:45 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                    On the openSUSE thing, I didn't read it, but assuming it's some kind of asymmetrical CLA, the fact other distros take non free approaches doesn't alleviate the problem on Canonical. Just pointing fingers won't make Canonical's CLA more free or more symmetrical.
                    It's not a CLA at all, it's a promise to not sue over MS patents.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                      Most debian developers/users consider these alternate kernels to be "toy projects", and they won't really impact debian's decision to use systemd or not. Very, very few people use these alternate kernels. Afaik debian is actually moving towards using systemd.

                      For example here's a post from a debian dev who definitely seems to believe debian should switch to systemd: http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg...-portable.html

                      They also conducted a user poll (which the dev mentioned in that post), and ~62% of debian users that responded supported debian using systemd. I would say its a good bet that debian will switch to systemd in the future, its just the sensible thing to do.
                      If Debian intends to move to systemd they would have gotten something more up to date in their Sid repositories instead of systemd v44.

                      Slow switch != keep an ancient version in the unstable and testing repos. Especially not for an init daemon that is already at v2xx.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                        If Debian intends to move to systemd they would have gotten something more up to date in their Sid repositories instead of systemd v44.

                        Slow switch != keep an ancient version in the unstable and testing repos. Especially not for an init daemon that is already at v2xx.
                        They have systemd 204 in experimental at least
                        and upstart 1.6.1 in unstable
                        Last edited by Akka; 08-24-2013, 10:54 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Honton View Post
                          Fewer features than systemd
                          Smaller community than systemd
                          Non-free Contributor agreement forcing contributors to relicense to non-free.

                          What is there not to hate?
                          Except Upstart has been thoroughly tested and systemd is only used in Fedora, openSUSE and Arch (all of them are alpha-quality distros).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                            Except Upstart has been thoroughly tested and systemd is only used in Fedora, openSUSE and Arch (all of them are alpha-quality distros).
                            Thouroughly tested is the reason you give when you don't have anything else to complain about. You should also mention that systemd has bugs and that its newer so people have to learn it and that bears shit in the woods. All these cheap reasons are just complains, unless you have a usecase which you tried and failed with systemd and the upstream didn't bother helping you.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by mark45 View Post
                              Thouroughly tested is the reason you give when you don't have anything else to complain about. You should also mention that systemd has bugs and that its newer so people have to learn it and that bears shit in the woods. All these cheap reasons are just complains, unless you have a usecase which you tried and failed with systemd and the upstream didn't bother helping you.
                              It's a good reason. Canonical do not want to de-stabilise the system simply by changing the plumbing layer, sorry.

                              And since you don't use Ubuntu - wtf are you complaining about?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                                Except Upstart has been thoroughly tested and systemd is only used in Fedora, openSUSE and Arch (all of them are alpha-quality distros).
                                openSUSE most definetly is not "alpha-quality" and systemd is used by many other distributions on top of those including Mandriva, Mageia, Chakra, NixOS, Sabayon... and it's going to be used on RHEL 7 (late 2013) and SUSE Linux Enterprise 12 (mid 2014). It's also used by Tizen and Sailfish on mobile. It's mandated by GENEVI Alliance for IVI systems and so on.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X