Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

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

  • Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

    Phoronix: Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

    With Ubuntu Linux still not relying upon systemd, the Upstart event-based init daemon has seen a new release just ahead of the Ubuntu 13.10 feature freeze...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ0MzM

  • #2
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Non-free Contributor agreement forcing contributors to relicense to non-free.
    Where the fuck did you take that from?

    Originally posted by Canonical
    With the contributor agreement chosen by Canonical, the Harmony CLA, the contributor gives Canonical a licence to use their contributions. The contributor continues to own the copyright in the contribution, with full rights to re-use, re-distribute, and continue modifying the contributed code, allowing them to also share that contribution with other projects.
    http://www.canonical.com/contributors

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Honton View Post
      Read your own link. When you sign this "harmony" thingy, Canonical obtains a broad license for you code. That's as non-free as it gets.
      So, you also think that BSD licences are non-free?
      After all, software that use it can also be relicensed.

      My understanding is that contributing to a project with the CLA is more or less the same as contributing a BSD licensed patch. With the added value[*] of knowing that it will most likely stay GPL for some time.


      [*] assuming that you prefer GPL over BSD
      Last edited by Malizor; 08-23-2013, 01:45 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        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
        ...and Wayland's MIT.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Honton View Post
          Read your own link. When you sign this "harmony" thingy, Canonical obtains a broad license for you code. That's as non-free as it gets.
          Last time I checked, non-free as it gets was proprietary software, not software licensed as GPL3.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Honton View Post
            No. Signing the Harmony agreement gives Canonical an exclusive right to relicense to whatever they see fit.
            Ok, it may be a better summary to say that the contribution is BSD in Canonical point of view and $PROJECT_CURRENT_LICENCE (GPLv3 in most cases) for every one else.
            And the contributor remain owner of his patch, so he can also publish it in whatever licence he wants.

            So it's somewhere between GPL and BSD if you prefer. But it's definitely not non-free.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Malizor View Post
              Ok, it may be a better summary to say that the contribution is BSD in Canonical point of view and $PROJECT_CURRENT_LICENCE (GPLv3 in most cases) for every one else. And the contributor remain owner of his patch, so he can also publish it in whatever licence he wants. So it's somewhere between GPL and BSD if you prefer. But it's definitely not non-free.
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                So, the article states:
                With Ubuntu Linux still not relying upon systemd
                (emphasys mine). So, are they planning to switch to systemd? (I certainly hope so). Or am I reading too far between the lines?

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.
                  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).
                  Last edited by Malizor; 08-23-2013, 02:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Free Software Foundation
                    A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

                    -The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
                    -The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
                    -The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
                    -The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

                    A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so.
                    Now enlighten us: how is this definition violated by a CLA?

                    Comment


                    • #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

                              Working...
                              X