Fedora 20 Moves Ahead With Wayland Tech Preview

[RahulSundaram]

Yeah but your contributions remain open source and you still maintain copyright. I'm not sure, in practice, that there is anything evil there.

I wouldn't call it evil since we are talking about technology and not moral choices. Canonical CLA creates a asymmetrical licensing situation and unlevel playing field that has been explained in detail at http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/25376.html

[johnc]

I wouldn't call it evil since we are talking about technology and not moral choices. Canonical CLA creates a asymmetrical licensing situation and unlevel playing field that has been explained in detail at http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/25376.html

Yeah the GPLv3 license for Mir is definitely it's biggest weakness from my perspective, vs. the other display servers out there.

[AdamW]

Installer fragile? Yes, granted. Better than in 18 though, and 20 I heard is supposed to have a few more changes to tweak it a bit. (Personally I wish they would've adopted Ubuntu's ubiquity and just modified it to suit their purposes... Installer is one thing Ubuntu got really right)

I wish people would stop saying this, because it's never going to happen. Ubiquity is quite a nice very simple OS installer. We can't use it for Fedora because Fedora needs to have a much more complex and capable installer. Fedora's intended user base requires (and has come to expect, based on previous releases) far more functionality than ubiquity provides. Where anaconda is more fragile or complex than ubiquity, it is so directly as a result of the need for additional functionality. If we could just drop half of anaconda's functionality, we could make it a lot simpler, but we can't. Anaconda is not appropriate for Ubuntu, and Ubiquity is not appropriate for Fedora. Sorry, folks.

[valeriodean]

I will try Fedora 20 for sure.
Step 1: install Fedora 20.
Step 2: log-in wayland world!!
Step 3: play and report bug

[danielnez1]

That is not true as I have pointed out before. Even if you accept a single outside contribution to the project, you cannot unilaterally introduce a CLA because it requires you to have all of the copyrights or a very broad sub licensing ability. Either it has to be introduced in the very beginning of the project or not at all. So NONE of the existing projects maintained without a CLA, for ex: systemd can do so at a later stage.

However, what is to stop Red Hat, or any other company/individual to introduce a new open source project (or correct me if I'm wrong relicense a BSD or MIT licensed project) with a CLA?

Given Red Hats use of CLAs in the past and there being no guarantee that they will never use them again, I don't think you are in a position to criticise Canonicals (I'm not a fan of them BTW) use of CLAs.

[RahulSundaram]

Yeah the GPLv3 license for Mir is definitely it's biggest weakness from my perspective, vs. the other display servers out there.

Due to the CLA, the GPL license doesn't apply to Canonical itself but it applies to everyone else. That inequality is problematic for contributors.

[RahulSundaram]

However, what is to stop Red Hat, or any other company/individual to introduce a new open source project (or correct me if I'm wrong relicense a BSD or MIT licensed project) with a CLA? Given Red Hats use of CLAs in the past and there being no guarantee that they will never use them again, I don't think you are in a position to criticise Canonicals (I'm not a fan of them BTW) use of CLAs.

There is no such thing as relicensing a project under CLA and even if there was, why would anyone want to relicense a permissive project? You might as well as claim that Red Hat can introduce a new proprietary project and therefore I am not allowed to criticize Canonical for their current proprietary projects. That's nonsensical.

[rogerdv]

Lets try to get a piece of useful information from this thread: does it play Crysis? Seriously, can I use it to play games? What GL version should I expect?

[TheBlackCat]

However, what is to stop Red Hat, or any other company/individual to introduce a new open source project (or correct me if I'm wrong relicense a BSD or MIT licensed project) with a CLA?

Nothing, but none of their existing software can be relicensed or fall under the CLA. So they would basically be starting over from scratch.

Given Red Hats use of CLAs in the past and there being no guarantee that they will never use them again, I don't think you are in a position to criticise Canonicals (I'm not a fan of them BTW) use of CLAs.

I don't think it is at all reasonable for one project to get off the hook for what they are doing just because another company might do something similar (with great difficulty and expense) at some indeterminate point in the future.

[danielnez1]

There is no such thing as relicensing a project under CLA and even if there was, why would anyone want to relicense a permissive project? You might as well as claim that Red Hat can introduce a new proprietary project and therefore I am not allowed to criticize Canonical for their current proprietary projects.

I can't speak for individuals or companies, but if the circumstances were right for whatever reason, then they could do it.

That's nonsensical.

Your posts could potentially be seen as brining Red Hat into disrepute, you should be a bit more tactful in your criticism.