Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mir Relicensed To GPLv2 Or GPLv3

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

  • Mir Relicensed To GPLv2 Or GPLv3

    Phoronix: Mir Relicensed To GPLv2 Or GPLv3

    While we await the Mir 1.0 release with its new target of supporting Wayland clients directly, we noticed there was a re-licensing change this week for the Mir code-base...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...GPLv2-or-GPLv3

  • #2
    Originally posted by tildearrow
    Why not MIT or the like?
    because not everyone likes to be abused

    Comment


    • #3
      On a related note the Unity8 forks seem dead on arrival. Who would've guessed

      Comment


      • #4
        Gee good thing I stopped using Canonical's crap back in 2011.

        Comment


        • #5
          All they need to do now it move it to Git and it might be the project it always should have been, a Wayland compositor with a low barrier to entry

          Comment


          • #6
            The motivation by the Canonical developers to support v2 wasn't disclosed in the commit, while there could be several reasons from better compatibility with GPLv2-only software to avoiding the explicit patent license of the GPLv3 and other legal additions imposed by the v3 of the licenses.
            IANAL, but my understanding was, since they explicitly mention GPLv3 as one of the offered licenses (rather than using the FSF's "or any later version" upgrade clause), they're explicitly accepting the committer-side terms of the GPLv3, which means anyone committing under those terms still grants a patent license to any relevant patents they hold to anyone taking advantage of the GPLv3 option.

            (ie. If I'm understanding things correctly, the only patent implications of offering GPLv2 as an option is that downstream users may (never been tested in court) be able to opt into vulnerability to patent lawsuits if a judge doesn't consider "well, they were given the GPLv3 as an option" as evidence that a patent license was intended.)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FireBurn View Post
              All they need to do now it move it to Git and it might be the project it always should have been, a Wayland compositor with a low barrier to entry
              Mir is not a Wayland Compositor. Like Wayland, Mir is is a Display Server which sits on KMS/DRM/DRI/EGL/libHybris, and it's going to accept Wayland Protocol connections from Wayland Clients. Weston - the reference Wayland Compositor - is a Wayland Client.

              Git doesn't magically make anything more inclusive/accessible.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by linuxgeex View Post

                Mir is not a Wayland Compositor. Like Wayland, Mir is is a Display Server which sits on KMS/DRM/DRI/EGL/libHybris, and it's going to accept Wayland Protocol connections from Wayland Clients. Weston - the reference Wayland Compositor - is a Wayland Client.

                Git doesn't magically make anything more inclusive/accessible.
                Sorry, you are slightly wrong on this from my understanding. Mir is a display server yes, but Wayland is not - it is a protocol, which compositors can implement. Weston is not a Wayland Client, it is an implementation of the compositor spec - i.e. it is the bit that sits on top of KMS/DRM/DRI etc. like you mention.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

                  IANAL, but my understanding was, since they explicitly mention GPLv3 as one of the offered licenses (rather than using the FSF's "or any later version" upgrade clause), they're explicitly accepting the committer-side terms of the GPLv3, which means anyone committing under those terms still grants a patent license to any relevant patents they hold to anyone taking advantage of the GPLv3 option.

                  (ie. If I'm understanding things correctly, the only patent implications of offering GPLv2 as an option is that downstream users may (never been tested in court) be able to opt into vulnerability to patent lawsuits if a judge doesn't consider "well, they were given the GPLv3 as an option" as evidence that a patent license was intended.)
                  Yes I think they are trying to create a best-of-both-worlds ambiguity which allows more freedom to link with proprietary code, while at the same time (creating an illusion that) proprietary users can inherit the implied patent license. However anyone linking under v2 restrictions is revoking their right to the implicit V3 patent grant, so they had better watch their backside!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                    because not everyone likes to be abused
                    You made my day!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X