Ubuntu 15.10 Plans Being Discussed Next Week

[r_a_trip]

They are making Mir while we already have Wayland and that is what everyone else will be using.
They are making a calendar, calculator, terminal and weather app while GNOME already have that.

So they are just doing things that already exist.
I would rather see them work on polishing things and making integration work.

You want the Ubuntu of old. That ship has sailed. Ever since the SABDFL stated he wanted to lead the Linux community and the community declined to follow him, Canonical has become more and more autocratic about Ubuntu. (Don't get me wrong, they made it, they can decide what to do with it.)

I don't know what goes on in Canonical's Headquarters, but looking from the outside at what is happening with Ubuntu, it looks like Mark S. wasn't kidding when he said he wanted to rival Apple. Slowly but surely the user facing software stack is being moved away from being a regular GNU/Linux setup. We have an inhouse DE, an inhouse Display technology. Canonical is creating their own package format with Snappy. All tied together with their own SDK and their own set of OOTB applications.

Its a good strategy for Canonical. Once Ubuntu has diverged enough from a regular Linux distro, they will have created their own niche. Even if they release it under the GPL (optionally with CLA), they can be sure that no one will be willing to adopt an Ubuntu technology, because it will have so much interdependencies that adopting it will turn another distro into an Ubuntu respin.

It's choosing time. Does one want to use GNU/Linux or does one want to use Ubuntu.

[Pajn]

I'm less irritated that they're making Mir than I am that they make contributors assign them copyright. GPLv3 alternative to Wayland? Fine. GPLv3 alternative to Wayland in which only Canonical has the option to relicense it as they see fit? Not fine - that's wielding copyleft as a weapon.

It's a CLA not a CA, no copyrights are beeing transfered.

[Michael_S]

It's a CLA not a CA, no copyrights are beeing transfered.

You're right. But the point is, their CLA specifically permits them to relicense the code any way they want. https://assets.ubuntu.com/sites/ubun...ANY-I_v1.2.pdf section 2.3
"Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also license the Contribution under the terms of the license or licenses which We are using for the Material on the Submission Date."

Now that's not terrible. If I sign the CLA and contribute to Mir today and they accept the contribution, then from the day after they accept the contribution to forever Mir + my contribution will remain GPLv3. But also the day after the contribution to forever they can also make a proprietary fork of Mir that includes my contribution, and keep all of their subsequent contributions to Mir proprietary.

[Pajn]

You're right. But the point is, their CLA specifically permits them to relicense the code any way they want. https://assets.ubuntu.com/sites/ubun...ANY-I_v1.2.pdf section 2.3
"Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also license the Contribution under the terms of the license or licenses which We are using for the Material on the Submission Date."

Now that's not terrible. If I sign the CLA and contribute to Mir today and they accept the contribution, then from the day after they accept the contribution to forever Mir + my contribution will remain GPLv3. But also the day after the contribution to forever they can also make a proprietary fork of Mir that includes my contribution, and keep all of their subsequent contributions to Mir proprietary.

Yes, however many companies have similar CLAs.
I have signed Googles and I think it said something similar. Not perfect I know but it's certainly something I can live with.

[Michael_S]

Yes, however many companies have similar CLAs.
I have signed Googles and I think it said something similar. Not perfect I know but it's certainly something I can live with.

Canonical's core business has been fully open source software up to this point. Google's has not. Google uses and creates a lot of open source software, but their core business is based around proprietary software. So I don't think it's fair to hold the same standard for CLA to both companies.

A better comparison would be with Red Hat - and as far as I know, the Red Hat CLA does not grant Red Hat the ability to relicense contributions.