Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The X.Org Foundation Is Undecided About Mir

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by e8hffff View Post
    Wayland is clearly lacking and their team should be taking a step back and thinking how can they improve their algorithms and routines to better suit supporting more scope as Mir plans.

    If Wayland is to be taken seriously, at the time Mir's release, Wayland should be able to do what Mir does, faster, and more. That's competition and innovation. People want that, so lets get away from these Sacred Cows.
    umm, wayland already does more than Mir..

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
      gpl 3? .
      gpl3 is 1 licence and the other is the commercial license possible due to their CLA

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by omglotsofdots View Post
        Some idiots always talk about freedom and open-source if it suits ones book. They forget about ubuntu did what some radical ditros aging more than one or two decades couldnt .if they didnt secrtly develop mir and announce it six months ago they would find a way to hate whatever they does anyway. Lets accept that conanical know how to reach enduser . Linux user was known as the geekest creatures before ubuntu came in. Now its about to change but haters do what they do. If you block the mir with your jews lobbying like struggles dont even fckng say why linux isnt getting popular
        Wow, that is an excelling argument - barely legible, tired old sentiments, out and out insulting to everyone in the discussion, and it still manages to throw in some anti-antisemitism. It's magic!

        Originally posted by nerdopolis View Post
        What's with all these users with a total number of posts in the single digits being extremely defensive to Canonical, and extremely anti-Wayland?
        Indeed.

        Originally posted by frign View Post
        Please people, especially at X.org, open your eyes and do what you've been doing best: promoting Wayland, even though it might not have a multi-billion-dollar company behind it.
        I think calling Canonical a multi-billion-dollar company is quite a bit of a stretch, considering they have yet to even make a profit.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
          gpl3 is 1 licence and the other is the commercial license possible due to their CLA
          Interesting. I've not come across this commercial licence. Does it actually exist or is it an hypothetical commercial licence that you are talking about?

          I am genuinely interested in knowing.

          Also, what would be wrong in offering the same product under a open source licence and a commercial licence?

          If I remember correctly, that is what Digia does with Qt and it seems to work out fine for both sides (The business that is Digia and the open source community around Qt).

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
            Interesting. I've not come across this commercial licence. Does it actually exist or is it an hypothetical commercial licence that you are talking about?

            I am genuinely interested in knowing.

            Also, what would be wrong in offering the same product under a open source licence and a commercial licence?

            If I remember correctly, that is what Digia does with Qt and it seems to work out fine for both sides (The business that is Digia and the open source community around Qt).
            Before giving this unqualified reply to me, you should have read up on the facts: Canonical reserves itself the right to turn every open source-project including all contributions done under the GPL into a proprietary one at any time with its CLA applied to e.g. Mir.

            If you want to commit to it you need to sign this CLA. That's why this project will never be "free" and should be abandoned asap. Everyone supporting this project is just feeding Canonical with his hard work with the risk of it becoming proprietary and "intellectual property".

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by nerdopolis View Post
              What's with all these users with a total number of posts in the single digits being extremely defensive to Canonical, and extremely anti-Wayland?
              They are here to tell you that Linux could not even boot before Canonical blessed us with a dark GNOME theme and defined Linux as we know it.

              Personally, I don't mind Ubuntu, but I don't like the direction Canonical has been taking -- isolationist, controlling, NIH.

              In any case, absolutely nothing has changed for me since Ubuntu first arrived. But some of the newer converts who are only familiar with Ubuntu tend to be overprotective. They think Linux didn't exist before that

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by frign View Post
                Before giving this unqualified reply to me, you should have read up on the facts: Canonical reserves itself the right to turn every open source-project including all contributions done under the GPL into a proprietary one at any time with its CLA applied to e.g. Mir.

                If you want to commit to it you need to sign this CLA. That's why this project will never be "free" and should be abandoned asap. Everyone supporting this project is just feeding Canonical with his hard work with the risk of it becoming proprietary and "intellectual property".
                So hypothetical then? Also, unless you are using two accounts here, that reply wasn't to you.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by frign View Post
                  Before giving this unqualified reply to me, you should have read up on the facts: Canonical reserves itself the right to turn every open source-project including all contributions done under the GPL into a proprietary one at any time with its CLA applied to e.g. Mir.
                  To be fair, a CLA does not say anything about proprietary licenses.

                  Many FLOSS projects use CLAs, including Qt, OpenOffice.org and most of the GNU toolchain, and the danger of closing these is rather small.

                  The only question is whether people trust the organisation to which they transfer their copyright. In the case of GNU, certainly. In the case of Trolltech/Digia, sure (the closed version funds the development and there are contractual safeguards to keep the code free forever). In the case of Oracle, not so much (hence the LibreOffice fork).

                  So far, Canonical has mostly released FLOSS software. The fear of CLA is a measure of distrust of Canonical as an entity. The Free Software Foundation could close GCC and make it proprietary at any point

                  If you want to commit to it you need to sign this CLA. That's why this project will never be "free" and should be abandoned asap. Everyone supporting this project is just feeding Canonical with his hard work with the risk of it becoming proprietary and "intellectual property".
                  Like I said, it is a measure of your distrust of Canonical, rather than an issue with the CLA. You surely don't believe that Emacs, GCC and GLIBC will never be "free" and should be abandoned ASAP.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
                    Interesting. I've not come across this commercial licence. Does it actually exist or is it an hypothetical commercial licence that you are talking about?

                    I am genuinely interested in knowing.

                    Also, what would be wrong in offering the same product under a open source licence and a commercial licence?

                    If I remember correctly, that is what Digia does with Qt and it seems to work out fine for both sides (The business that is Digia and the open source community around Qt).
                    well step by step

                    1.) well in practice it doesn't because right now Mir is basically skeleton code but the possibility is very real since they plan to reuse android drivers and those are very restricted and closed source as closed source can possibly be, so a copyleft license could win them some nice legal issues or carriers refusal to accept put ubuntu phone on sell.
                    2.) is not wrong per se but the copyleft protection is very gray with canonical, in the digia/QT case is a bit different since KDE/Qt foundation have them by the balls with actual legal obligations and agreements and the fact itself that digia will cut their own neck if KDE fork Qt [very bad business image and good chunk of developers from several communities] but if in the specific case of canonical Mir doesn't actually do anything that wayland already do[they can't change wayland license or fork surfaceflinger without google on their backs so they created Mir] and for the mid term future Mir will be Canonical exclusive and ubuntu specific that give them the advantage of do anything they want with very low resistance unlike such a widely used project like Qt.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      I'm not that familiar with licenses, but AFAIK, CLA is in any form more evil than MIT license for wayland. So, if I'm right, anyone can reditribute a closed version of wayland, but only canonical would be able to redistribute a closed version of mir right? Or can canonical "revoke" the GPL license to the code through CLA and effectively closing down the code and prohibiting anyone from forking mir?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X