Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 146 of 146

Thread: Ubuntu Planning To Develop Its Own File Manager

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote 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).

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDF420 View Post
    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 ?
    Please stop being resonable. It's Phoronix Forums, remember? You're supposed to hate Canonical and not look behind.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Even though I believe you (you seem to be honest), I can't corroborate nor refute your claim about Eben's claims if you don't provide me with a link, or at least give me pointers as to where and when he said so.
    I'm sorry. I got that quote from here: http://www.muktware.com/2014/01/linu...broken/19811/2

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    If you use non-copyleft licenses, you know beforehand it can happen, and you did agree anyone could use it. So, I still don't see your point on it being intrinsically better. I can understand it in the context you pointed out before where you value their investment and you agree to give them that extra right because of that, but other than that, it's not like you wouldn't expect anyone to use it to make proprietary forks and just caught you off guard if you used a liberal license.
    You got a point. That's something I should think more about.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Actually, we don't disagree completely. I did think before that their intention was only to close up the software, but seeing how the right to sublicense is just part of a template from another project they use, it may as well be mostly for the "don't sue us!" part. I don't like the possibility being asymmetrical, and that's where we do disagree, but right now I don't think they really want to make closed source software, or at least I won't consider that a fact until (if) it happens.
    I agree that they will probably become irrelevant if they go fully closed. That's one of the things I'm concerned about. I think it's a damn fine product overall (personally, Unity doesn't fit me well, but Ubuntu as ecosystem and base for several flavors is great IMO, I use Xubuntu and I'm very happy with it, and I acknowledge that for the kind of user Unity is targeted, it seems to serve really well, at least that's what I got from some friends who love it), but this kind of CLA, IMO, reduce contributions and alienate the community, and that could mean it will get worse over time, instead of improving.
    I like your thinking. Though it we disagree in other areas, it's nice talking to you. Thanks for the different points of view.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,567

    Default

    Quote 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

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,567

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote 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_; 02-05-2014 at 01:17 AM.

Posting Permissions

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