Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 69

Thread: Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,186

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote 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?

    Quote 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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Quote 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 at 01:45 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    565

    Default

    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?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Quote 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 at 02:15 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote 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?

Posting Permissions

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