Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54

Thread: Wayland 1.3 Release Candidates Are Now Out

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Oh. Did these better things just come up, or did you just decide to ignore them when you were arguing with me for the last two posts?
    They were there all along, I tend to prefer contributing to open source projects I support rather than getting caught up in debates about them. I took the bait what more can I say other then I'm disappointed with myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Hmm, I don't think I've asserted anything as truth, but maybe I'm mistaken. Can you point out to me where this happened?
    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    When Intel starts selling their Tizen-based ultrabooks, they're going to increase the Linux marketshare more than Ubuntu ever did.
    Edit: If you were not just asserting speculation that would read: "If Intel starts selling their Tizen-based ultrabooks, they would increase the Linux marketshare more than Ubuntu ever did."
    Last edited by tarceri; 09-24-2013 at 11:12 PM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tarceri View Post
    They were there all along, I tend to prefer contributing to open source projects I support rather than getting caught up in debates about them. I took the bait what more can I say other then I'm disappointed with myself.
    Well, don't be too hard on yourself. I'm sure you'll forgive you.

    *
    Edit: If you were not just asserting speculation that would read: "If Intel starts selling their Tizen-based ultrabooks, they would increase the Linux marketshare more than Ubuntu ever did."
    Well that maybe, but I had since that post and before your post clarified my stance, so it seems a bit disingenuous and pedantic to dig up the earlier statement.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    160

    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".

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Well that maybe, but I had since that post and before your post clarified my stance, so it seems a bit disingenuous and pedantic to dig up the earlier statement.
    Whatever makes you happy.

  5. #45
    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.

Posting Permissions

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