Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME & Intel Developers Plan The Wayland Future

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

  • Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Anyway you should take a look at Ohloh instead. KDE keeps trailing Gnome on contributors. KDE is staring into the abyss now.
    It should be noted that Ohloh.net doesn't work properly with projects that have hundreds of repositories. The reported activity is lower than what it actually is. Also you can still see that the activity in both projects is very similar in terms of commits and number of contributors; it's just that KDE used to be a lot bigger. Also the Gnome in Ohloh.net includes projects like GStreamer, NetworkManager, Clutter, glib, GTK+... so it's hardly compareable to KDE as most of that functionality is provided by Qt.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teho View Post
      It should be noted that Ohloh.net doesn't work properly with projects that have hundreds of repositories. The reported activity is lower than what it actually is. Also you can still see that the activity in both projects is very similar in terms of commits and number of contributors; it's just that KDE used to be a lot bigger. Also the Gnome in Ohloh.net includes projects like GStreamer, NetworkManager, Clutter, glib, GTK+... so it's hardly compareable to KDE as most of that functionality is provided by Qt.
      I agree that this comparison is silly but fyi, Qt doesn't really include all of the functionality of NetworkManager or Gstreamer. Only some basic features.

      Comment


      • hmm QT and the CLA no thank you QT can be ReLicensed at any time and the CLA is Evil

        Comment


        • Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
          I don't consider the effects very different at all. The core effect is that only one party has the ability to relicense the entire codebase.
          No, that is one of many effects. It is an effect you find important, but is far from the "core" effect by any stretch of the imagination. That is the "core" effect of a CLA, but the "core" effect of copyright assignment is that the copyright owner changes.

          Why are you dragging this on and on? Is it really so hard to just say "I made a mistake, Qt and Canonical don't require copyright assignment, so bringing it up was completely irrelevant. But I still don't like CLAs."?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
            hmm QT and the CLA no thank you QT can be ReLicensed at any time and the CLA is Evil
            Quick Time is not open source!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Akka View Post
              Quick Time is not open source!
              i want it to be sad just sad

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                No, that is one of many effects. It is an effect you find important, but is far from the "core" effect by any stretch of the imagination. That is the "core" effect of a CLA, but the "core" effect of copyright assignment is that the copyright owner changes.

                Why are you dragging this on and on? Is it really so hard to just say "I made a mistake, Qt and Canonical don't require copyright assignment, so bringing it up was completely irrelevant. But I still don't like CLAs."?
                I didn't bring it up in the first place. I was responding to someone else who said that Red Hat requires CLA and pointed out it wasn't the case and we have a different perspective on what the core effect is. Agree to disagree there.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                  I didn't bring it up in the first place.
                  Yes, you did. Post number 104. No one was talking about copyright assignment before then, especially not the person you were responding to. Copyright assignment has nothing to do with the discussion. It was irrelevant, it was wrong to imply that it was relevant, and you know it.

                  Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                  we have a different perspective on what the core effect is. Agree to disagree there.
                  Oh come on. Are you seriously going to pull the "agree to disagree" card on basic English?

                  Core (n):
                  2. the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything.

                  Are you seriously going to argue that the "the central, innermost, or most essential part of" copyright assignment is that you get to change the license? There is nothing even slightly more "central, innermost, or essential"? Like perhaps maybe, assigning copyright? I was just going to let the whole thing slide, but I can't stand it when someone expects people to just "agree to disagree" on basic facts just so they don't have to admit making a mistake.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                    I agree that this comparison is silly but fyi, Qt doesn't really include all of the functionality of NetworkManager or Gstreamer. Only some basic features.
                    Yeah, I meant Clutter, GTK+ and glib. KDE also uses NetworkManager and GStreamer (as QtMultimedia, QtWebKit, QtGstreamer and Phonon backend and by KDE Telepathy for video calls) so that was the other point I was trying to make.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                      Yes, you did. Post number 104. No one was talking about copyright assignment before then, especially not the person you were responding to. Copyright assignment has nothing to do with the discussion. It was irrelevant, it was wrong to imply that it was relevant, and you know it.

                      Are you seriously going to argue that the "the central, innermost, or most essential part of" copyright assignment is that you get to change the license? There is nothing even slightly more "central, innermost, or essential"? Like perhaps maybe, assigning copyright?
                      CLA's generally include copyright assignment. That was what I was responding to and clarified that Red Hat's agreement do not include that (I also noted in a second post that they do not include any type of sublicensing either). I made no comparison with Qt or Canonical agreements at all in my post. Since you replied noting that Qt and Canonical agreement are about sub-licensing, I shared my perspectives that the real issue with both types of agreements are asymmetrical licensing and I consider that to be the core effect and yes, I do have the view that the whole purpose of copyright assignments from commercial vendors is for them to retain the ability to relicense under other typically proprietary terms.
                      Last edited by RahulSundaram; 01 August 2013, 12:44 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X