Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Planning To Develop Its Own File Manager

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by hajj_3 View Post
    I'd like to see a clone of Windows 8's 'file manager' but with tabbed windows support, it would perfect! I'd also like a linux equivalent of windows 8's 'task manager' but with a tab for gpu too which windows doesn't have. These 2 things would make linux not only more usable but more familiar to windows users switching to linux.
    Funny thing is, KDE project did that in KDE3: "konqueror --profile=filemanagement".

    But then they had to make it "better" in KDE4.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by nll_a
      I don't think you can relicense BSD or Apache code if you're not the copyright holder, can you?
      The core point is what happens to derivative work. Whether the original code is GPL or BSD has zero significance with whether the original code stays opensource or not. With BSD you can close-source derivative work, with GPL you cannot.

      Comment


      • So under the CLA i am still the copyright holder of my contributions...................Sounds fair to me

        So folk are getting upset because Canonical are employing developers to contribute full time to Canonical projects ...... WTF!!! . With said projects falling under the GPL/CLA this gives dual copyright ownership of all non Canonical employee contributions and Canonical could re-licence the entire project, including your contributions, when and if they see fit.

        So has Canonical re-licensed any GPL project thus far? Or are you all just all worrying about the what if ?

        Their proprietary projects like landscape have always been proprietary not re-licensed
        Since those projects are GPL, you should always have access to or be able to fork that GPL version no ? Just lose access to any new code added to a proprietary version if re-licensed ?
        Last edited by DDF420; 03 February 2014, 09:47 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DDF420 View Post
          So has Canonical re-licensed any GPL project thus far? Or are you all just all worrying about the what if ?
          Canonical will not re-licensed (they cannot). It can sublicense/dual license, like Qt.
          Phone manufacturers/carriers are usually interested in such options.
          It could also be there just to prevent a contributor from revoking his license (similar to the FSF CLA), although few believe that to be possible anyway (but it has never been tested in court).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DDF420 View Post
            Their proprietary projects like landscape have always been proprietary not re-licensed
            Since those projects are GPL, you should always have access to or be able to fork that GPL version no ? Just lose access to any new code added to a proprietary version if re-licensed ?
            Whether GPL or not, nothing ever requires that a project be redistributed forever. Mainly GPL says that if *is* redistributed, you have to have access to sources as well. However, if the license can be changed (that might essentially count as a fork), it would most likely be enough to stop distributing the original GPL version in *any* form and only distribute the relicensed version to get around the requirement to distribute the sources. Then again, I'm no lawyer

            Comment


            • Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
              Whether GPL or not, nothing ever requires that a project be redistributed forever. Mainly GPL says that if *is* redistributed, you have to have access to sources as well.
              Or the corollary: keep all GPL'd code mirrored and redistributed as widely as possible and it will stay free forever.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by sarmad View Post
                One day we'll hear about Ubuntu planning to develop their own kernel.
                No we won't. They could, theoretically, fork the Linux kernel (and with their NIH obsession they just might) but developing their own would be another thing entirely - an endeavor far beyond Canonical's abilities. To put this into perspective, neither Microsoft nor Apple use purely in-house developed kernels in their products. The NT kernel was mostly developed by IBM and was practically stolen by MS when they ditched OS/2. Apple currently uses a modified Mach 3 UNIX kernel (with parts of BSD attached here and there).
                Last edited by prodigy_; 05 February 2014, 02:17 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X