Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 56

Thread: Canonical's Mir Project Retracts Wayland Criticism

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Hmm, interesting. It looks like the GPL+CLA is still a bit better than MIT. From the perspective of Canonical, GPL+CLA is MIT. But from the perspective of everyone else, GPL+CLA is GPL. As long as Canonical does not exercise their right to relicense the code (or suffers an existence failure), it's just as good as standard GPL. On the other hand, anyone in the world can close down MIT software.
    You can't "close" MIT code. You can:
    - use the open source code in a closed project (does not prevent in any way using the open source code in open source projects).
    - do a closed source fork of the code. This does not "close" the existing code in any way.

    Saying "OMG they can close permissively licensed code!!!" is more or less the same as "OMG they could stop contributing to some project!!!"

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    You can't "close" MIT code. You can:
    - use the open source code in a closed project (does not prevent in any way using the open source code in open source projects).
    - do a closed source fork of the code. This does not "close" the existing code in any way.

    Saying "OMG they can close permissively licensed code!!!" is more or less the same as "OMG they could stop contributing to some project!!!"
    Sure they can close MIT code not the existing code but the future code and thats whats important.Yes someone else can pick up where they left off but that would be a fork. I'm not suggesting that would ever happen with Wayland but it can happen. Its not the same as stopping contibuting to a project because the project still moves forward it just no longer open source.

    Edit: I think I see what you were replying to now "anyone in the world can close down MIT software" yeah that statement is a little open for interpretation yes someone can take it and create a closed fork but obviously not just anyone in the world can just close down the current project.
    Last edited by timothyja; 03-06-2013 at 05:01 AM.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Hmm, interesting. It looks like the GPL+CLA is still a bit better than MIT. From the perspective of Canonical, GPL+CLA is MIT. But from the perspective of everyone else, GPL+CLA is GPL. As long as Canonical does not exercise their right to relicense the code (or suffers an existence failure), it's just as good as standard GPL. On the other hand, anyone in the world can close down MIT software.
    No.

    CLA means = "$our_license; 0*"
    CLA substitutes and invalidates current license for any license.

    If you see "CLA (anything)", you should read "proprietary".

    The only point where CLA can be positive, and that at very thin balance, is when - its GPL+CLA.
    A company can then for money relicense the software for special project and thus receive income, but the main project is GPL and hence can not be incorporated into proprietary projects directly.
    This is not case with MIT/BSD, where they can do what they want without paying to the hoster.

    However, because CLA means "anything" and not "anything, but only open source" or not "anything, but only as time job/income source", GPL+CLA can quickly become far more dangerous than BSD/MIT in a case the company decides to relicense the content and revoke the GPL. Because they have the copyright. This is "turn into proprietary at a fraction of a second".

    The best license is GPL3+ without any copyright assignments, or LGPL3+ for libraries meant to be dynamically linked.
    Not "GPL2 only" stupidity we have in Linux. Through all of its existence, GPU project has improved the GPL license to match the policy of providing four freedoms to the users and did not change anything in its policy.
    GPL is a very reliable license. Fullstop.
    Last edited by brosis; 03-06-2013 at 05:20 AM.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911

    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
    Free software is a non-commerical organisation with single goal to protect four user freedoms which they achieved inventing the GPL license, that never ever changed its original course since its birth.

    Just saying.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    562

    Default

    A tablet or Phone or even Ultrabook will NEVER replace desktops.

    Those things have too much limiting screens and input methods to really replace a Desktop....and if they got real big screens (and i'm talking about physical size and not resolution....what matters if a screen is 1920x1080 pixels if is 6" in size with microscopic fonts and/or small amount of text ?!?)...

    The hole idea of tablets, smartphones, etc. reminds me of mouse+keyboard vs Gamepads vs that kinetic abortions....mouse+keyboard ( and mouse+gamepad also works OK....i'm making sure of that with a software that i'm doing....but only for Win or WINE...sorry, no LINUX because i'm too lazy and have no info about a language that allows me achieve the same under Linux) are and will continue to be the best controls to play a FPS game for example.
    Companies try to reinvent the wheel , but it can't be done....a wheel is a wheel.

    There is a place for tablets and smartphones but also for Desktops and it will be that way for a long long long time.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,352

    Default

    Exactly true. There are still plenty of use cases where desktop computers are necessary and touch interfaces are pure torture. And this is not likely to change in the next decade or two. Programming, development, 3d design, graphic design, digital art, music/sound editing, video editing, etc... the list goes on.

    Tablets and smartphones are nice for the things they are used for, but the idea that they could replace all computers is idiotic. Touch interfaces do not scale well beyond about 12", above that they are horrible ergonomically. Touchscreen keyboards will never be as ergonomic as real keyboards, and touch input is less ergonomic than using a mouse, so any work that requires long periods of interacting with an interface will require a) a big enough screen and b) keyboard + mouse.

    One could argue that we might get tablets that are powerful enough that if you attach a monitor, keyboard and mouse they could act as desktop computers. But why would we need tablets for that? What benefit could there be to combine two devices of very different purposes into one? That's the dock thing all over again, the reality is it's much easier to have a separate desktop computer and tablet.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    71

    Default Not necessarily

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    Until it forces mir on everybody and everybody will use it. They have push, wayland doesn't. Most users don't care so most users will use mir since canonical says so. Wayland will be dead on arrival for the simple fact that Ubuntu is the most popular and Canonical will choose mir over wayland.
    It was us Linux knowledgables who put Ubuntu in the spotlight. I wonder how fast it could drop if we stop pushing every new comer and their dog to Ubuntu as the first stop Distro.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r_a_trip View Post
    It was us Linux knowledgables who put Ubuntu in the spotlight. I wonder how fast it could drop if we stop pushing every new comer and their dog to Ubuntu as the first stop Distro.
    I said something on those lines in another thread....i stopped long ago to recommend UBUNTU to any new_user/M$_"refugee" and recommend instead Linux Mint that doesn't use Unity and because other issues.

    It's a much better out-of-the-box experience still very easy to use for new users.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Ultimately for new users though I'm going to tend to hook them up with the unofficial openSUSE guide (opensuse has good documentation with things like this) http://opensuse-guide.org/ and an install of openSUSE with KDE and let them have fun with it.
    I could go with that - less based on rapid releases (problem for Fedora and Ubuntu) and has the cohesive YAST utilities. Sounds like a good fit for new users.

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    It's repeatedly claimed that Michael favors Ubuntu and is biased towards it. Then you claim he's biased against it, to the point of hating it. Can't have it both ways.
    I think you will find that this kind of thing happens a lot on these forums...

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    The only point where CLA can be positive, and that at very thin balance, is when - its GPL+CLA.
    A company can then for money relicense the software for special project and thus receive income, but the main project is GPL and hence can not be incorporated into proprietary projects directly.
    Red Hat is arguably one of the most profitable software companies in the world and definitely the most profitable free software company, and yet they seem to have never sold a proprietary product. You can sell free software, especially with added services such as cohesive support on top.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoen1x View Post
    That's the whole point. Ubuntu is crap, never was good at anything. It's just hyped crap distro, that sucks everything from others and gives nothing in return yet they take all the glory for themselves.
    Since you were quoting me, I would just like to point out that the main purpose of my post was not to say that Ubuntu was necessarily crap, just that it did not have much that differentiates it from the others. It is simply at the very least nothing special.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Exactly true. There are still plenty of use cases where desktop computers are necessary and touch interfaces are pure torture. And this is not likely to change in the next decade or two. Programming, development, 3d design, graphic design, digital art, music/sound editing, video editing, etc... the list goes on.

    Tablets and smartphones are nice for the things they are used for, but the idea that they could replace all computers is idiotic. Touch interfaces do not scale well beyond about 12", above that they are horrible ergonomically. Touchscreen keyboards will never be as ergonomic as real keyboards, and touch input is less ergonomic than using a mouse, so any work that requires long periods of interacting with an interface will require a) a big enough screen and b) keyboard + mouse.

    One could argue that we might get tablets that are powerful enough that if you attach a monitor, keyboard and mouse they could act as desktop computers. But why would we need tablets for that? What benefit could there be to combine two devices of very different purposes into one? That's the dock thing all over again, the reality is it's much easier to have a separate desktop computer and tablet.
    Well said.

Posting Permissions

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