Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

Thread: Canonical's Mir Project Retracts Wayland Criticism

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,920

    Default Canonical's Mir Project Retracts Wayland Criticism

    Phoronix: Canonical's Mir Project Retracts Wayland Criticism

    If you are now to look at Ubuntu's Mir specification page for their new display server, you will see that their open criticism of Wayland/Weston has disappeared...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    "different requirement" = nazi-style control and CLA.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    71

    Default

    so, classical NIH at its finest

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nurnberg.
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungManKlaus View Post
    so, classical NIH at its finest
    The worst thing is, some of those shouting loudest right now are the same people who sided with ATI, against AMD and SuSE, 5 years ago. They did a _huge_ NIH on the RadeonHD driver, with reduced open source goals and they were much less technically advanced. The fglrx driver is still going very strong today because of what they pulled. Yet still people listen to them when they now cry foul few years later, and shout along. It is massively hypocritical.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by libv View Post
    The worst thing is, some of those shouting loudest right now are the same people who sided with ATI, against AMD and SuSE, 5 years ago. They did a _huge_ NIH on the RadeonHD driver, with reduced open source goals and they were much less technically advanced. The fglrx driver is still going very strong today because of what they pulled. Yet still people listen to them when they now cry foul few years later, and shout along. It is massively hypocritical.
    radeonhd itself being a massive NIH of avivo, driven 100% by corporate/business reasons.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nurnberg.
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daniels View Post
    radeonhd itself being a massive NIH of avivo, driven 100% by corporate/business reasons.
    Really?

    And this by the guy who said that he had an impossible time to set up basic display stuff as it would hardlock at every corner. My view: the avivo hardware was really quite nice and somewhat resilient. I believe i would've managed quite a lot more out of that display engine (with the massive amount of display insight and knowledge that i had at the time), even without the _extremely_ low level information ATI provided (which ATI hoped would stop us in our tracks).

    But honestly, partly due to ATI, partly due to AMD, we were just not allowed to talk to others, and were not allowed to contribute to anything else before the big announcement by AMD. We at SuSE were not even told when that announcement was, we kind of guessed and aimed for september, but we were never told until it happened. That was 2-3 months of possibly disjointed development, for very little gain. As the stuff that Avivo did provide was actually pretty minimal.

    I am not saying that avivo was not important. Avivo was massively important in showing the world that a free driver for ATI was needed. But from an actual driver point of view it only achieved some limited things that could easily be gleaned by reading the 32bit registers directly. There was little that would warrant continued code re-use, and a continuation of the avivo driver would in effect only retain the name.

    Then... You yourself chose to use the GPL, which is not too acceptable for an open source graphics driver. We at SuSE were not allowed to try and talk to you guys to go and change it. If you had chosen to use MIT however...

    All in all, the corporate issues with respect to the avivo driver were definitely not on the SuSE side. And they definitely do not provide any justification to side with ATI on a "divide and conquer" tour which reduced the open source story to a figleaf. And _you_ actively contributed to that my friend, all the way down to taking part in hacking a repo of a long dead project, abusing fd.o root, and then not owning up for 3 days with the security of fd.o in limbo.

    Edit:

    You and some others NIHed, for no other reason than trumping us at SuSE, and being able to make the most noise. There is simply no other sustainable explanation.
    Last edited by libv; 03-06-2013 at 09:03 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Please folks (both Mir and Wayland devs), it doesn't matter that time has been wasted. What matters is that somehow you folks find common ground and work together openly.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F i L View Post
    What matters is that somehow you folks find common ground and work together openly.
    Note that Canonical's Contributor License Agreement strongly discourages code collaboration. Requiring copyright assignment is pretty rare, and even rarer still when the assignee can take the code proprietary. It also discourages working together since it puts everyone not the assignee on a considerably lower footing.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grotgrot View Post
    Note that Canonical's Contributor License Agreement strongly discourages code collaboration. Requiring copyright assignment is pretty rare, and even rarer still when the assignee can take the code proprietary. It also discourages working together since it puts everyone not the assignee on a considerably lower footing.
    Free Software Foundation also requires such an assignment for some of their projects (e.g. GCC). Just saying.
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tweenk View Post
    Free Software Foundation also requires such an assignment for some of their projects (e.g. GCC). Just saying.
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
    I'm just going to hijack your conversation here

    Section 2.3 of Canonical's agreement says this:

    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.
    They have the right to make the software proprietary, but it must be in addition the license of the software when the contribution was accepted. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, since Mir is licensed under the LGPL and GPL, they could never dual license it with a proprietary license.

    If what I said is true, I'm not worried about the CLA.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •