The X.Org Foundation Is Undecided About Mir

[jayrulez]

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).

[Hamish Wilson]

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!

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.

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.

[jrch2k8]

gpl 3? .

gpl3 is 1 licence and the other is the commercial license possible due to their CLA

[robclark]

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..

[milesmeloro]

1) Lack of good input subsystem (befor you say, but Wayland DO have... It's NOW. Canonical decided BACK THEN. Everybody is wise after the fact.. )
2) Putting shell into Wayland protocol. Where toolkits will support it. And where Canonical would need to rewrite it.
3) Lack of interest in Android drivers, AMD/Nvidia binary drivers.
4) All the advantages of creating something in house..
5) Wayland being not ready.

Reasons where there. What I do not understand are people who ASSUME, that Canonical do something out of pure evilness, or selfishness. Or that they should work on project X, because they MUST.

Mir is FLOSS. Whatever they create Wayland can mimic it...

Honestly I was just trying to see what e8hffff would say; most of the time it doesn't seem like he knows what he's talking about, so it'd have been amusing. I do think Canonical has a few decent reasons to develop Mir but I think it would've been better for everyone if they stuck with Wayland and tried to get what they want out of their own compositor and proposing changes to the code or writing some themselves.

[jayrulez]

for me, mir is proprietary with the horrible license applied to it

gpl 3? .

[frign]

Wayland -> XHtml 2.0 ?

This entire discussion reminds me of XHTML 2.0, which was determined to replace HTML 4 but then was halted due to HTML5 being developed independently and the W3C was eager to keep its monopole on web-standards. Is HTML5 better than XHTML 2.0? Definitely not, maybe even worse.

So, what teaches us this lesson learned years ago?

When a company starts developing a proprietary solution (for me, Mir is proprietary with the horrible license applied to it) and standards-faculties are feeling pushy to bring out their own solution or even try to implement the foreign solution, then I have to tell you that Canonical is just interested in their own profit and might not even care for a full-fledged solution for the GNU-operating system.

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.

[jrch2k8]

Canonical is creating Mir for 1 reason only Cellphones and Tablets and that is because only google can put enough pressure on Imagination and Qualcomm to open their drivers and canonical knows that, so they need a server close enough to surfaceflinger so they can reuse the android native drivers [i even bet ubuntu phone will use AOSP kernel until google backport enough to vanilla] but to do so they need a commercial license[or compatible] but without google big brother watch.

on the desktop is very likely you can choose either mir or wayland on ubuntu since i doubt they care too much and that mir build will prolly be FOSS compliant.

btw wayland input patches were around way before canonical started developing Mir, all the problem here is they are switching to a mobile OS company that have a similar OS for your PC, not saying is bad just saying their focus now is mobile and the desktop is just an adittional selling point but not their main target anymore

[nerdopolis]

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?

[jayrulez]

Open source is not strictly about the source code being available.
It has to public available for everyone under a FSF-approved and OSI-approved and DFSG-compliant license.
It should be in the spirit of free software, which means the maintainers should accept contributions, and keep development in the open.
Developing it in the secret behind closed-doors for 6 months and and then doing a code drop is not very much in line with the spirit of open source.

Also requiring contributors to sign a CLA isn't very much in the spirit of open source either.

Open source is strictly about the source being available. You are describing something else.