Originally posted by talvik
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mir Display Server Gets A Demo Shell, New Demos
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by uid313 View PostThere are no rationale behind Mir.
Same with qt-components-ubuntu and all the other stuff released under GPLv3+CLA.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Awesomeness View PostOf course there it. It's just not the one that Shuttleworth and his minions promote publicly. Mir is being developed and released under GPLv3+CLA to ensure that vendors have to pay Canonical to not be bound be the GPLv3 (GPLv3 prohibition is widespread among vendors of embedded systems).
Same with qt-components-ubuntu and all the other stuff released under GPLv3+CLA.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html !!!!!!!
Phoronix is a honeypot for idiots, and Michael Larabel is full of snide remarks whenever he is mentioning something about Ubuntu.
Michael, can you lift the quality of Phoronix?
Comment
-
Originally posted by barryr View PostOh the horror, and the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors as well,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html !!!!!!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by barryr View PostOh the horror, and the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors as well,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html !!!!!!!
Originally posted by barryr View PostPhoronix is a honeypot for idiots, and Michael Larabel is full of snide remarks whenever he is mentioning something about Ubuntu.
Comment
-
He's right though, the CLA is pretty much irrelevant, it's a non-issue that people who don't understand how the GPL works like to make a huge deal about. The CLA doesn't matter, Canonical cannot close down existing GPL code, they can relicense their CLA:d code - or even dual-license it - but the code already released as GPL will stay GPL. Furthermore, dual-licensing, ie. releasing as GPL and selling a GPL-free version for businesses that want to use the code with proprietary code is an entirely acceptable method of monetizing GPL code, even FSF and Stallman himself have said so.
There are much better reasons for being against Mir than CLA. Like the fact that it's a crappy, cheap imitation of Wayland, causes fragmentation of the graphics stack, is controlled by one company instead of having an ecosystem of developers around it and doesn't do anything that Wayland can't do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostHe's right though, the CLA is pretty much irrelevant, it's a non-issue that people who don't understand how the GPL works like to make a huge deal about. The CLA doesn't matter, Canonical cannot close down existing GPL code, they can relicense their CLA:d code - or even dual-license it - but the code already released as GPL will stay GPL. Furthermore, dual-licensing, ie. releasing as GPL and selling a GPL-free version for businesses that want to use the code with proprietary code is an entirely acceptable method of monetizing GPL code, even FSF and Stallman himself have said so.
There are much better reasons for being against Mir than CLA. Like the fact that it's a crappy, cheap imitation of Wayland, causes fragmentation of the graphics stack, is controlled by one company instead of having an ecosystem of developers around it and doesn't do anything that Wayland can't do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dee. View Postit's a crappy, cheap imitation
is controlled by one company
an ecosystem of developers around it
and doesn't do anything that Wayland can't do.
Comment
-
Comment