Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Edge Campaign Set To Close At $12M USD

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Depends on your view. You can download a free version. But the version upstream is not free because of the contributor agreement. If the contributor agreement was removed, Upstart would be discontinued. Why? Because it makes no sense when systemd does a much better job.
    SO Let me see if I understand what you are claiming here. Does this mean that glibc and gcc is NOT FREE? What about the GNU operating system.. You know just about everything that surrounds the kernel in userland? all of which needs you to submit to a CLA. Not free? So Stallman and co. has not clue what free software is and you do? Thanks for that. I feel enlightened. I'll just add this for clarity. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

    Comment


    • #32
      CLA's are irrelevant. If some software is published under GPL, that version will always be GPL forever and ever, even if the developer changes the license to whatever in the next release - even if the next release is fully proprietary and closed, the last GPL-licensed version will always stay GPL and available for forking and continued development.

      If CLA of GPL'd software bothers someone that much, fork the project and don't demand CLA's from anyone. It's within your rights, as outlined by the GPL. Frankly, in all but some corner cases, CLA is irrelevant, and some jurisdictions may even take it as implied, even without an explicit CLA.

      There are 6001 good and valid reasons why Mir sucks donkey dick, so let's not focus on the frivolities.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by bkor View Post
        GNOME does have to spend time on it. This is what was explained in the last 50 articles about Mir and what I said in my previous comment already. Saying "it does not have to" is very unrealistic. Are you actually a developer?

        And this does NOT relate to what Unity 8 is based on.
        Care to explain? I'm not being offensive here, I am just curious, because in my current understanding, it doesn't.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by matzipan View Post
          As for Mir and Unity? Nobody forces you to use any of them.
          If only things were that simple, we would not be complaining. Ubuntu means great userbase, nobody would argue on that it I think. This includes gaming, as Steam focusing on Ubuntu confirmed recently. Then, there are nVidia and AMD and their proprietary drivers. For what display server do you think they'll develop ? The answer is not the point here, the point is that they won't do it for both. And I think everybody agrees on one thing : the ultimate goal is to do without X as quick as possible. Do you think that kind of decision would allow it ? I don't.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by omer666 View Post
            If only things were that simple, we would not be complaining. Ubuntu means great userbase, nobody would argue on that it I think. This includes gaming, as Steam focusing on Ubuntu confirmed recently. Then, there are nVidia and AMD and their proprietary drivers. For what display server do you think they'll develop ? The answer is not the point here, the point is that they won't do it for both. And I think everybody agrees on one thing : the ultimate goal is to do without X as quick as possible. Do you think that kind of decision would allow it ? I don't.
            I'm not sure it's Canonical's fault that hardware vendors will only support one, I agree it would've been nice for Canonical to play nice with everybody else, but you can't say it's their fault. Also, work on Mir seems to have began in June last year, back then Wayland+Weston were just a dream.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by andydread View Post
              The CLA argument is a red herring arguement. The FSF demands you sumbit to a CLA for all work contributed to GNU. So I guess you don't run any GNU operating systems then? Its one thing to hate Canonical and Shuttleworth however blowing things out of proportion and spreading misinformation without any proof that CLA are non-free because of the nature of them is not helping your cause and is quite frankly ridiculous given the position of the FSF regrarding your so-called non-free CLA http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
              FSF guarantees that it will stay under a free software license. Canonical does not. The entire purpose of the Canonical CLA is to ensure it can be made proprietary. I think any CLA is bad, but don't use FSF as an example, as they're different.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by omer666 View Post
                The answer is not the point here, the point is that they won't do it for both.
                Mir aims for an EGL interface, Wayland can render to an EGL interface. The low-level stuff isn't the problem. It's the upper levels that now have to speak both.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by bkor View Post
                  FSF guarantees that it will stay under a free software license. Canonical does not. The entire purpose of the Canonical CLA is to ensure it can be made proprietary. I think any CLA is bad, but don't use FSF as an example, as they're different.
                  Original contributor keeps its copyright, so in order to make some under-CLA software proprietary, Canonical would have to convince every single contributor to revoke the GPL license of their contribution. It works both ways: if a contributor would change its mind and revoke the GPL license of their contrib, you would still have Canonical's GPL license.

                  Sharing copyrights with one or multiple third parties pretty much reinforces the guaranties that something stays under a free software license (but not exclusively under such a license).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                    Original contributor keeps its copyright, so in order to make some under-CLA software proprietary, Canonical would have to convince every single contributor to revoke the GPL license of their contribution.
                    Original contributor keeps the copyright on his code, true, but Canonical has a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license to relicense contributed code as they see fit. Previous contributions stay under the GPL, but if Canonical decided to only release version N+1 under a proprietary license, they can.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Uh, back to the topic of this campaign, does anyone else find it ironic how they didn't want to do Android emulation in Ubuntu Phone for ideological (not technical, mind you) reasons, and yet this phone was supposed to dual-boot Android? No? Just me? Whatever.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Honton View Post
                        Your claim. Many disagree. You might as well claim that Software Freedom is irrelevant.
                        So, naturally you're also against any GPL-licensed software that only has one developer? Because that's the same thing, really. In practice at least. A sole developer can choose to change the license or dual-license their code, just like a CLA allows.

                        CLA doesn't take away your software freedom. If the software is Free, it will stay Free, you'll always be able to fork it and make your own version without any CLA - no one can retroactively change licenses of already released versions, CLA or not.

                        And oh, if we're talking about software freedom, you could just go to the FSF page where Stallman writes that dual-licensing and selling a proprietary version of a GPL-licensed software is an entirely acceptable business model.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by matzipan View Post
                          Care to explain? I'm not being offensive here, I am just curious, because in my current understanding, it doesn't.
                          GTK+ is sort of seperate project, but actually it is not. Most of the patches are from GNOME developers. You rarely see anyone else contributing towards it. Replacing X with Wayland means a lot of work as X is way more than just a display server. If you could assume that everyone uses Wayland and pretend that X is a dead-end, then you deprecate the X-specific stuff and go for Wayland. However, you need to deal with the transition period. So at this time various developers are splitting off X bits and sharing that stuff between X and Wayland. This takes quite a bit of time.

                          People seem to assume that a toolkit just needs to include a new display server backend. This is far from true. E.g. Wayland does not do anything like xrandr. Feel like changing your resolution in a similar way across desktops? Good luck! Now instead of assuming just Wayland for GNOME, GTK+ cannot. So though we'd like to deprecate X-specific/assuming APIs, in reality you do want your applications to work across distributions. So you need to spend time on figuring out what should be left with X, what should be shared together with X and Wayland, but also guess what Mir is going to do.

                          Now aside from just GTK+, various applications do have X-specific things in them. E.g. they call X-specific GTK API. That's actually a bug (should only do that when they're running on X), but, well, real world is sometimes way different than real life.

                          We're ignoring Mir as much as we can (quite easy as it is so distrobution specific + focussed on one distribution), but a lot of developers do work on parts of the stack that must work across distributions and toolkits. If you work on that level, it is far from easy.

                          For Mir, it won't do as much as X does. Similar to Wayland. However, for Wayland we decide ourselves what the replacements should be, or what to share with X. For Mir, there is a total lack of clarify (logical IMO as despite the suggestions by some people here, Wayland is far ahead). That's not good if you want the lower bits to work across distributions. There is XMir, but that reuses X. It won't tell anyone about Mir.

                          Now it is pretty cool on this forum to suggest that "XXX just hates Ubuntu". Meanwhile, we're spending time to ensure that things work. E.g. you can input easily in the same way in Chinese/Korean in X+Wayland+Mir. For more detailed explanation I'd have to ask the real developers. But in brief: Wayland already results in deprecations in GTK+ and changes in various toolkits (clutter). But also changes in gnome-shell, mutter, gnome-settings-daemon, gnome-shell-extensions, gnome-control-center, colord, etc. Quite a bit more than just a new backend in GTK+!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                            Original contributor keeps its copyright, so in order to make some under-CLA software proprietary, Canonical would have to convince every single contributor to revoke the GPL license of their contribution. It works both ways: if a contributor would change its mind and revoke the GPL license of their contrib, you would still have Canonical's GPL license.

                            Sharing copyrights with one or multiple third parties pretty much reinforces the guaranties that something stays under a free software license (but not exclusively under such a license).
                            Why do you think you sign a CLA?!? Canonical doesn't have to do that at all. That's why they have that CLA. They can sell a proprietary version without any issues. At which point that proprietary version can have any changes applied to it. Obviously there will still be some free software version which stays under the same license.

                            Anyway, once a contributor contributes under GPL, it stays GPL.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by bkor View Post
                              Why do you think you sign a CLA?!? Canonical doesn't have to do that at all. That's why they have that CLA. They can sell a proprietary version without any issues. At which point that proprietary version can have any changes applied to it. Obviously there will still be some free software version which stays under the same license.

                              Anyway, once a contributor contributes under GPL, it stays GPL.
                              Do you think the Apache Foundation is also secretly planning to create closed source versions of its software? How about Gentoo? Are they evil for having a CLA? And QT project must be even worse, not only do they have a CLA, they really do dual-licence the code!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by bkor View Post
                                Why do you think you sign a CLA?!? Canonical doesn't have to do that at all. That's why they have that CLA. They can sell a proprietary version without any issues. At which point that proprietary version can have any changes applied to it. Obviously there will still be some free software version which stays under the same license.

                                Anyway, once a contributor contributes under GPL, it stays GPL.
                                I think the reason a lot of people are upset with CLA agreements is that there is a chance it won't stay GPL exclusively. Yes, once the code has been released with the GPL, that code will always be GPL, but the CLA means that Canonical can make a nonGPL release.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X