Originally posted by mjg59
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mir's GPLv3 License Is Now Raising Concerns
Collapse
X
-
All devs know (or should know) that to send code to canonical means sign the CLA.
So, if you signed it, you have accepted it and I don't care nothing about that.
You are the owner of you code, if you decide to donate it to Canonical, than it's a your decision.
About...
It's good to have 3000 different distribution 10 Desktop environment but not 2 different Graphic Server. (or you can do it but not Canonical)
Try to use your brain for recognize the differences between a linux distro/DE and a display server, you should find a big external player that don't play any role in the linux distro/DE proliferation but that play a decisive role in the display server's success or its fail.
Now you can choice one distro/DE without take care about binary blob interference in your choice, but this is no more true in case of a display server.
If nvidia/amd will provide EGL support for their driver then ok, for me there is no problem in the "EGL-type display server proliferation" scenario, otherwise there is a problem.Last edited by valeriodean; 20 June 2013, 06:46 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seb24 View PostExampple :
- Lot of people say Mir and Unity are proprietary but they are in GPLv3 Licence
- It's good to have 3000 different distribution 10 Desktop environment but not 2 different Graphic Server. (or you can do it but not Canonical)
- GPLv3 is good unless Canonical use it. In this case it's bad...
etc.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mjg59 View PostYou've missed the point. The CLA mean that Canonical can sell proprietary licenses to hardware vendors without changing anything.
http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blo...ght-assignment has a write up of the advantages and disadvantages of requiring copyright assignment. In general I'm not a fan, but I understand why organisations sometimes require it, and it doesn't necessarily mean there is bad intent.
Comment
-
Originally posted by brent View PostYes, there is a lot of hypocrisy going on and a lot of people have obvious double standards. I don't think that's me, though. I never was a fan of the GPLv3. It is a very controversial (and IMHO pretty bad) license.
Comment
-
Originally posted by entropy View PostBut why is CLA so important for Canonical?
Red Hat and Google (Android) make a very good business without a similar licensing (AFAIK).
And they're also investing a lot. I'd say way more than Canonical.
Red hat agreement: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/ccmpl.html
Google Android agreement: http://source.android.com/source/cla-individual.html
Comment
-
Originally posted by mjg59 View PostYou've missed the point. The CLA mean that Canonical can sell proprietary licenses to hardware vendors without changing anything.
Comment
-
Originally posted by chrisb View PostContributor copyright agreements aren't necessarily evil or unusual. Other projects that require copyright assignment: Android, Gentoo, OpenJDK, every FSF project (!!!), every Apache SF project, OpenOffice, etc.
Comment
-
Comment