Mir's GPLv3 License Is Now Raising Concerns

[duby229]

It is a transparent HTTP proxy so disabling Javascript doesn't help. Since they look at every HTTP request, there is no way to avoid logging, other than using a VPN and encrypting all data. Or use HTTPS Everywhere, but that will only help with web browsing, all of the apps will still use plain http. Every app and service leaks data to the network. The VPN solution would work but you might stand out - I would guess there are only a few people in a million who always use an encrypted VPN for all cell phone traffic.

That's a very cool suggestion though. I think I'll be looking into doing something like that. I already have a VPN set up, so it shouldnt be too hard for me to do.

[chrisb]

There already is a reason: carrier/hardware vendor relations - maybe some carrier doesn't want to offer GPLv3 software as a part of their phone OS, so Canonical can offer them a deal to give them a proprietary version of the display server.

The display server isn't the only GPLv3 software in Ubuntu Touch - bash is GPLv3, so is Coreutils, grep, gzip, tar, etc. Ubuntu is dependent on GPLv3 software, and there isn't an easy way to change that.

[dee.]

The display server isn't the only GPLv3 software in Ubuntu Touch - bash is GPLv3, so is Coreutils, grep, gzip, tar, etc. Ubuntu is dependent on GPLv3 software, and there isn't an easy way to change that.

Yeah, and it doesn't really matter to me in any case. If they want to sell proprietary versions of GPL code to someone, that's their right and I don't really care that much. I care more about the damage they're doing to the desktop ecosystem...

[RahulSundaram]

Are there any situations in which a copyright license agreement is desirable even if you don't need the ability to relicense? Aren't there open source projects (Apache, Ubuntu, Gentoo, GCC) for which there is no alternative closed-source version, and yet those projects still require a contributor copyright agreement?

There is no valid reason for a company to ask for your copyright or have the ability to sublicense under different terms unless they want to retain the ability to dual license. Other projects you mention are all public non-profit foundations and are legally bound to not to engage in practises that don't benefit the society due to bylaws or other provisions. In addition to that FSF (and others) have specific clauses in their license agreements not to engage in proprietary licensing.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/assigning-copyright

Which Canonical projects are dual licensed as closed-source? Not "hypothetically-might-happen" (as in this case), but code that you can actually buy under a closed source license right now?

That info is a trade secret. Canonical is a private commercial vendor and is under no obligation to disclose their commercial licensing agreements with the public. You won't get to know whether they do it now or in the future. All you can know is that they have the full legal rights to do so.

[ворот93]

And not a single fuck was given that day.

[spacetoilet]

There is no valid reason for a company to ask for your copyright or have the ability to sublicense under different terms unless they want to retain the ability to dual license. Other projects you mention are all public non-profit foundations and are legally bound to not to engage in practises that don't benefit the society due to bylaws or other provisions. In addition to that FSF (and others) have specific clauses in their license agreements not to engage in proprietary licensing.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/assigning-copyright

That info is a trade secret. Canonical is a private commercial vendor and is under no obligation to disclose their commercial licensing agreements with the public. You won't get to know whether they do it now or in the future. All you can know is that they have the full legal rights to do so.

Mir has parts of Wayland in it as a Ubuntu Developer said befor Canonical needs to add the MIT license as well? and the Andoird parts are LGPLv2.1 libhybris?

[RahulSundaram]

Mir has parts of Wayland in it as a Ubuntu Developer said befor Canonical needs to add the MIT license as well? and the Andoird parts are LGPLv2.1 libhybris?

Not necessary. MIT is a very permissive license and can be included in a GPL'ed codebase and the project on the whole will still be considered GPL. If you are just dynamically linking to a LGPL'ed library, that doesn't affect the license of the project.

[cynical]

There already is a reason: carrier/hardware vendor relations - maybe some carrier doesn't want to offer GPLv3 software as a part of their phone OS, so Canonical can offer them a deal to give them a proprietary version of the display server. And if you speak of Canonical's track record... they have a track record of going back on their word, adding adware to the app launcher, etc... then there's the fact that the SmartScopes (or whatever they decide to call it tomorrow) server runs proprietary code, as does UbuntuOne on the server side. The reason given by Canonical is "we can't open our code because people might be able to compete with our service". So clearly Canonical doesn't have any problem with developing proprietary applications when it suits their "business plan".

Yeah that doesn't make sense. They are talking about a platform of convergence, and specifically mentioned avoiding the problems that android has in regards to device fragmentation. So there is no way they are going to offer to make something like the display server proprietary. It would be a maintenance nightmare and go against their goals. Also how is adding a link to amazon adding adware?

As far as their "proprietary" server code, surely you can understand why a company wouldn't want to share their secret to bringing relevant search results to their userbase... I mean it would be the equivalent of complaining that google doesn't share their search algorithms with everyone, the reason should be obvious. That is not the same as developing proprietary applications for their userbase and comparing it to that is strange at best. And on top of that you can choose not to send your search terms to them anyway, so if it bothers you so much you can just disable it. It doesn't get much more user friendly than that...

I really can't wrap my brain around the idea that if Canonical does dodgy things and the Linux community calls them out for it, it somehow "reflects poorly on the Linux community". Believe me, I would like nothing better than being able to stop "bashing" Canonical, but that would require them to stop doing incredibly stupid and harmful things, like Mir and that launcher adware (whatever it's called today).

Calling them immoral for wanting to do things their own way instead of contributing to the community is what reflects poorly on the Linux community, not stating that you don't like the direction they're taking. Most of what you've posted here is misleading, and bordering on trolling. Do you feel the need to exaggerate to make your case against Canonical? I think there are legitimate reasons to criticize their actions, like for example not communicating with the community about Mir early on, but I really don't get the responses of most people. So what if they are making Mir, they aren't forcing anyone to support them. I don't see how what they are doing is harmful or stupid. Even if you dislike them they at least are spreading the word about Linux and that exposure leads to people learning about your favorite distribution too.

Yeah, and it doesn't really matter to me in any case. If they want to sell proprietary versions of GPL code to someone, that's their right and I don't really care that much. I care more about the damage they're doing to the desktop ecosystem...

What damage is that exactly? Is that the same kind of damage that Lxde or Xfce4 are doing? They are choosing to write their own software rather than develop KDE or Gnome.

[erendorn]

You should block this, as the logs it generates are just too dangerous. If they are doing this on your own computer, using a browser like Firefox with an extension that can block the Javascript to fetch the compressed versions of images or alternate HTML pages should work, just as it does for me. If it is a carrier-provided device, I would recommend not using their browser and installing another. I would not own a device where this could not be done.

Any carrier tampering with web pages should be treated as malicious, and all of the carriers should be treated as actively malicious in light of tracking scandals like CarrierIQ and Comcast's attacks on Bittorrent.

Why would it be? http is a plaintext protocol, you should not expect it to be unreadable by third parties.
Use https for anything you find sensitive, it's made in that purpose.

[daniels]

GPL3 + CLA is simply awesome for Canonical:
- GPL3 is good in server space and stuff (customers know that they can support what they use even if you disappear)
- you can keep saying you do open source projects (copyleft, even!). That's important when you are building on Debian community (and community in general, e.g. for support).
- on the other hand, only few embedded vendors (phones, smart TVs, cars infotainment, etc..) will ship GPL3 code, because security / commercial warranty, locked bootloaders and stuff (and app stores, and drm, etc..).
- this means that for every vendor that won't ship GPL3 code, only Canonical can license them a closed source version. The CLA ensures that no other contributor can commercialize the project in most of the embedded space.
- By this, you ensure that no other commercial entity will contribute to your project, and you can even blame them for not playing nice with you.

and, since there's no other companies in that space, you can be the only one selling hardware enablement packages to OEMs.