Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: Wayland 1.3 Release Candidates Are Now Out

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,789

    Default Wayland 1.3 Release Candidates Are Now Out

    Phoronix: Wayland 1.3 Release Candidates Are Now Out

    Kristian Høgsberg has put out the first test releases of the forthcoming Wayland 1.3 release and reference Weston compositor...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ2NzA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    811

    Default

    It's a bugfix release and since the features are internal or weston-related, it doesn't deserve a new point release.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    They need to look like they're making progress. They themselves realized how serious and fast Canonical is about the development of Mir so they have to look like they're keeping up.
    Does anyone bite your pathetic trolling attempts anymore?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    They need to look like they're making progress. They themselves realized how serious and fast Canonical is about the development of Mir so they have to look like they're keeping up.
    I'll bite. It doesn't matter how fast Canonical moves with Mir or how slow Wayland progresses. Despite your boundless hope that the world will unite on Mir, this is not going to happen.

    The way that Canonical introduced Mir, with a big tada and a lot of technical falsehoods about Wayland, stepped on a lot of toes. That Mir was conceived in total darkness as a secret skunkworks project, kept under wraps for 9 months, also didn't endear any outsider to Mir.

    Mir is asymmetrically licensed under the GPLv3 + CLA. This means that no-one but Canonical can license a Mir implementation under less free conditions. For mobile, with the specific requirements of that industry in place, Mir under the GPLv3 is useless to any distributor but Canonical. Wayland in contrast is licensed under MIT and this means everybody is free to use it as free software or to close up the code. This is completely symmetrical. No need to beg ($$) Canonical for a license exception. This alone reduces the chance of third party Mir uptake dramatically.

    You may think that Canonical is big enough to bend the entire Linux community to their converged vision and on Canonical's terms, but they are not. They are a relatively small company, that has captured a smidge of the non-technical minded computing market (in comparison to the whole non-technical computing market). A smidge that is not really paying the bills to boot.

    What you think is a titanic battle of wills between mighty Canonical and the rest of the puny Linux developers, is in fact a technical rift between tiny Ubuntu and the rest of the massive Linux ecosphere. Ubuntu is breaking off of the larger Linux ice shelf. So you will have a whole family of diverse Operating Systems, powered by Linux, GNU, Wayland and systemd and there will be Ubuntu, powered by Linux, GNU, Mir and upstart. Where do you think the synergies will happen?

    Ubuntu is becoming its own thing. If that is bad or good, I'll leave to interested stakeholders. I no longer have any skin in that game. It will probably mean that Ubuntu will keep diverging from what is traditionally understood as a Linux distribution. Since upstream support for Ubuntu is becoming strained, I wouldn't be surprised if Canonical opts to write its own development environment, unique to Ubuntu. This will mean yet another FOSS platform, next to Linux, *BSD, Haiku, ReactOS, etc. but if running that makes you happy, it makes me happy that you have found your thing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r_a_trip View Post
    Mir is asymmetrically licensed under the GPLv3 + CLA. This means that no-one but Canonical can license a Mir implementation under less free conditions.

    Wait, wait, wait.... are you telling me that the opensource community is mad that a piece of OSS can't just be forked and released under a less free license? Being able to just show up, take someone else's hard work, fork it and license it under a less free title and develop it outside of the GPL is now a GOOD THING in the open source community? So what Oracle does is a good thing now?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    He said the asymmetry is unfair, that's it. The right level of freedom or restrictions may vary for different parts of the software stack, but asymmetry is always wrong.

    Wayland is symmetric, MIR is asymmetric. MIR is always the wrong choice for every one but Canonical.
    I wasn't aware GPL was ever unfair. Everyone is free to use any GPL code as free GPL code. Multi-developer licensed GPL can have issues. Ask VLC how they had to rewrite perfectly good code due to a number of developers not responding or simply refusing change the license on their code when the main project decided too (I seem to remember reading ~30% of VLC code had thier devs refuse to change license and had to have the code rewritten, but I don't remember of that's true or just my bad memory) . Pretty shitty situation that is smart to avoided by CLA, that way one asshole with an axe to grind can't kill/damage an entire project.

    link, but the whole story isn't found in this one link: http://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl-libvlc.html
    Last edited by dh04000; 09-23-2013 at 11:23 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    I wasn't aware GPL was ever unfair.
    Canonical can relicense your code under any license they want. Nobody else can do this. Then you have to trust a company. I'd rather not. Simple said: maybe current management is fine, but what if they're taken over? E.g. MySQL->Sun->Oracle. FSF at least guarantees to only ever change it to a similar free software license and still I don't like it that they have special powers.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    I wasn't aware GPL was ever unfair. Everyone is free to use any GPL code as free GPL code. Multi-developer licensed GPL can have issues. Ask VLC how they had to rewrite perfectly good code due to a number of developers not responding or simply refusing change the license on their code when the main project decided too (I seem to remember reading ~30% of VLC code had thier devs refuse to change license and had to have the code rewritten, but I don't remember of that's true or just my bad memory) . Pretty shitty situation that is smart to avoided by CLA, that way one asshole with an axe to grind can't kill/damage an entire project.

    link, but the whole story isn't found in this one link: http://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl-libvlc.html
    I don't think so. People that don't like to change the license of their code do not accept to sign a CLA, for obious reasons.
    So you lost completely that contributors, it's not "I still have their code but now I can change the license by myself".

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    I wasn't aware GPL was ever unfair. Everyone is free to use any GPL code as free GPL code.
    True. I wouldn't object (license wise) to a project that is only available under the GPLv3 license. But Mir is only available under the GPLv3 license for the world and under any other license to Canonical.

    This means that Canonical can use Mir in a closed source fashion, that ultimately is to the detriment of FOSS. I do not trust Canonical, so they don't get the benefit of the doubt from me.

    The competitive landscape is skewed with Mir under the GPLv3 and CLA. Every project (outside of Canonical) using Mir, can only offer solutions licensed under the GPLv3. Which would be fine if the only option to use Mir was under the GPLv3. But it is not. Canonical has the option of selling license exceptions to handset makers.

    Any Mir using project confined to the GPLv3 can't really make a stand towards hardware vendors, when these vendors demand licensing that lets them use Mir in a proprietary fashion. These vendors could just skip the completely FOSS project and get a closed source Mir via Canonical's CLA backdoor. This is undermining for free software.

    If Canonical would come out and say, yes we could license proprietary, but it will be a cold day in hell before that happens, in a legally iron clad way, then I would have no objection to Mir GPLv3 + CLA. As of yet, Canonical didn't do that, so the playing field is isn't level.

    Wayland may have a weak license, but it is completely the same for every last one of us on this planet. On top of that, the people involved with it have a good track record in the FOSS world, so I don't expect any shenanigans to come to the fore.

    As an aside, even if Mir was GPLv3 only, this still doesn't change the fact that it is a technically redundant and fragmentary duplication of effort.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Essex, Connecticut
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Same Question - Does anyone bite your pathetic trolling attempts anymore?

Posting Permissions

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