Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 69

Thread: Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    135

    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.
    Wrong. The author of the code keeps her copyright and can relicense it under any license she wants.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,309

    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. 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.
    How does this compare to the fedora cla?
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...l/Licenses/CLA

    • 2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the Project:


    • (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative works; and,

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    Ubuntu FOR ANDROID, genious. This project was unveiled more than one year ago, so by now everyone should know that they are having problems to release its source code. And this is the huge problem with mobile right now, patenting issues. This problem is happening because of Motorolla/Google, not Canonical/Ubuntu.

    Get a life and stop trolling.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    How does this compare to the fedora cla?
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...l/Licenses/CLA
    To be fair, this CLA is not used anymore (see the notice at the top of the page).
    But yes, AFAIK it was quite similar to the Canonical CLA.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    it's not Ubuntu. It's Ubuntu for Android (UfA) based on AOSP
    there is a big difference
    Ubuntu will remain free and open source they can't redistribute it under a commercial license

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malizor View Post
    To be fair, this CLA is not used anymore (see the notice at the top of the page).
    But yes, AFAIK it was quite similar to the Canonical CLA.
    how about this
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...utor_Agreement
    and this
    Microsoft’s Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...munity.mspx#E3

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benalib View Post
    it's not Ubuntu. It's Ubuntu for Android (UfA) based on AOSP
    there is a big difference
    Ubuntu will remain free and open source they can't redistribute it under a commercial license


    "No. UfA is a modified and reduced (in size) Ubuntu distro. We have modified packages and also new code/scripts that is needed to interact with Android. A new distro would have to redo all that work. You cannot just drop another one in"

    "Will developers be able to make these additions to custom ROMs themselves?

    cwayne18Ubuntu for Android

    Many of the additions need to be made with the OEMs, so unfortunately not"

    "Now for commercial versions of UfA, where we work with OEMs, we will respect whatever rules the OEM asks us to follow. Since Android is BSD licensed, it would be unlikely that we would be able to open source the commercial versions."

    Closed Source!! Ubuntu

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,446

    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.
    No it can't. Not by anyone other than the copyright holder.

    You can use BSD-licensed code in proprietary projects, and publish it as binaries without releasing the source, even if you make changes in it, but the license of the code still stays the same, and you have to include the license notice to your (proprietary) software - it's why Mac OS includes the BSD license notice somewhere in its documentation.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    No it can't. Not by anyone other than the copyright holder.

    You can use BSD-licensed code in proprietary projects, and publish it as binaries without releasing the source, even if you make changes in it, but the license of the code still stays the same, and you have to include the license notice to your (proprietary) software - it's why Mac OS includes the BSD license notice somewhere in its documentation.
    most of it's here? http://www.apple.com/opensource/

Posting Permissions

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