The X.Org Foundation Is Undecided About Mir

[jayrulez]

I don't see how that works tho... Say I do the fork and the code that was contributed up to 11:59 is still licensed under the GPL. That means that any code that is used under the new license that was contributed up until 11:59 is still bound by the GPL. Any code written after that would not be. The only possible way to aviod a GPL violation would be to replace all of the code that was written before 11:59 with new caode that was written after that.

The fact that GPL code is being used in a proprietary format is itself a GPL violation. Once it's closed who's to say what changes were made? The GPL requires that modifications be made public. If they continue developing the same code base then that in fact does qualify as a violation. The only way to aviod the violation is to replace all existing code with new code.

EDIT: If the fork continues developing on the same code base then they are making changes, and the GPL requires changes also be GPL. It is the entire premise of the copyleft.

Not the case. Canonical is the owner of the code they contribute so they have the right to use that code under any licence they want to even if it was GPL. That is the advantage Canonical gains from the CLA. They get the right to use your code in any way they want to which e.g relicensing it.

That is why any contributor should read the CLA and understand before they sign it and contribute to any project that is under Canonical's CLA.

If a contributor is okay with Canonical using their code in that way, then they sign and contribute. If they are not okay with that, then they do not sign and do not contribute to the project.

I suggest you read Canonical's CLA to better understand how it works.

Canonical's CLA is not a code licence like GPL or BSD. It is a contract which if you agree to and sign gives Canonical the right to use your contributions in any way they want.

The CLA in no way circumvents the GPL.

Regards!

[frign]

No problem.

I don't see how that works tho... Say I do the fork and the code that was contributed up to 11:59 is still licensed under the GPL. That means that any code that is used under the new license that was contributed up until 11:59 is still bound by the GPL. Any code written after that would not be. The only possible way to aviod a GPL violation would be to replace all of the code that was written before 11:59 with new caode that was written after that.

The fact that GPL code is being used in a proprietary format is itself a GPL violation. Once it's closed who's to say what changes were made? The GPL requires that modifications be made public. If they continue developing the same code base then that in fact does qualify as a violation. The only way to aviod the violation is to replace all existing code with new code.

EDIT: If the fork continues developing on the same code base then they are making changes, and the GPL requires changes also be GPL. It is the entire premise of the copyleft.

The problem with double-licenses is that it is never clear which the dominant one is. I don't have the time and will to read through the CLA, but there sure are ways to block the GPL, especially when you consider how easy it is to invalidate copyleft-licenses.

[duby229]

That's not about technicalities so much as fact. The FOSS(GPL 3) is not void. The Mir development code is publicly available at https://launchpad.net/mir. The development is public. If Canonical decides to change the licence to a proprietary one at 12:00 PM tomorrow, then you are free to fork any code that is available up to 11:59 AM under GPL 3 if you are so inclined. That means any contributions made by any contributor will be available for any one to use it. The proprietary version wouldn't be able to accept further contributions from the community under GPL 3. Therefore, there is no stealing of one's code by Canonical for a proprietary product.

I hope that clears some things up.

Regards

I don't see how that works tho... Say I do the fork and the code that was contributed up to 11:59 is still licensed under the GPL. That means that any code that is used under the new license that was contributed up until 11:59 is still bound by the GPL. Any code written after that would not be. The only possible way to aviod a GPL violation would be to replace all of the code that was written before 11:59 with new caode that was written after that.

The fact that GPL code is being used in a proprietary format is itself a GPL violation. Once it's closed who's to say what changes were made? The GPL requires that modifications be made public. If they continue developing the same code base then that in fact does qualify as a violation. The only way to aviod the violation is to replace all existing code with new code.

EDIT: If the fork continues developing on the same code base then they are making changes, and the GPL requires changes also be GPL. It is the entire premise of the copyleft.

[jrch2k8]

Thank you for your civilized reply. I was expecting just Yes/No answers since I wanted to deal only with facts. However, your detractors from each answer were leaning on the hypothetical.

well yes is too early and at this point even Mir is hypothetical, like i said before Mir is just skeleton code with some rendering support here and there and a bunch of skeleton code for many toolkit in canonical repos with 100% canonical employees commits[last time i checked their bazaar log]

[jrch2k8]

That's not about technicalities so much as fact. The FOSS(GPL 3) is not void. The Mir development code is publicly available at https://launchpad.net/mir. The development is public. If Canonical decides to change the licence to a proprietary one at 12:00 PM tomorrow, then you are free to fork any code that is available up to 11:59 AM under GPL 3 if you are so inclined. That means any contributions made by any contributor will be available for any one to use it. The proprietary version wouldn't be able to accept further contributions from the community under GPL 3. Therefore, there is no stealing of one's code by Canonical for a proprietary product.

I hope that clears some things up.

Regards

errrm that is exactly what we said ... but ok yes that is correct maybe we didnt explain it good enough

[jayrulez]

1.) so far no but most of their projects were bit rotten or failed to gain any traction at all, so unlike this possible case there was absolutely no need to do so
2.) not am aware of either [there could be cases outside the linux distro ubuntu scope]
3.) no i actually used ubuntu for a while and like i said is not evil the dual license but that the risk is that canonical have a really bad track with their projects and now that they can realistically get big bucks from the mobile market it introduces an additional sense of risk for those who expect Mir to be a contender in the FOSS world[assuming is actually worked and released <--i doubt it][im rooting with wayland] since many doubt canonical will fight for copyleft rights in mobile sector if they have to face actual money loss from doing so. For example "hey canonical that new Brand X super cool phone that is hot right now require you to change your licenses cuz imagination don't feel legally secure of using your copyleft wrappers so do it or bye bye" or "Big American Carrier wanna do X and Y to mod their version of ubuntu phone or they reject it and they don't wanna push any code back to repos"

as a note most community ppl including me give a rat ass about canonical projects and most of them never really leaved the ubuntu scope, so if canonical tomorrow do twist with their projects i doubt you see much pressure from FOSS ppl

Thank you for your civilized reply. I was expecting just Yes/No answers since I wanted to deal only with facts. However, your detractors from each answer were leaning on the hypothetical.

[jayrulez]

well Mir so far have minimal[if at all] contribution from outside Canonical developers and that will be for a foreseeable future, so in this case the CLA/FOSS licence is technically void since they can just put code in another repo and let rot the public one without much consequence after all they are the only ones putting code there

so is kinda useless to fight technicalities at this point

That's not about technicalities so much as fact. The FOSS(GPL 3) is not void. The Mir development code is publicly available at https://launchpad.net/mir. The development is public. If Canonical decides to change the licence to a proprietary one at 12:00 PM tomorrow, then you are free to fork any code that is available up to 11:59 AM under GPL 3 if you are so inclined. That means any contributions made by any contributor will be available for any one to use it. The proprietary version wouldn't be able to accept further contributions from the community under GPL 3. Therefore, there is no stealing of one's code by Canonical for a proprietary product.

I hope that clears some things up.

Regards

[jrch2k8]

That is not true. You may fork any publicly available GPL3 code that is under Canonical's CLA. The CLA only covers code that is contributed to the project under Canonical's control.

The CLA does not take any right from you as the owner or user of the code. It only grants Canonical the right to use your code as they please, e.g: redistributing it under a commercial licence. It does not stop you from doing anything that you can do with any other piece of GPL code. If you are fine with allowing Canonical to commercialize your code, then you are free to sign the agreement and contribute to the project, otherwise, you do not contribute or you can fork the project.

Making that comment shows you are either misinformed on the matter or being dubious by lying outright.

well Mir so far have minimal[if at all] contribution from outside Canonical developers and that will be for a foreseeable future, so in this case the CLA/FOSS licence is technically void since they can just put code in another repo and let rot the public one without much consequence after all they are the only ones putting code there

so is kinda useless to fight technicalities at this point

[jrch2k8]

So in short, it is only theoretical.

Here are a list of projects under Canonical's CLA: http://www.canonical.com/contributors.

Here are a few Yes/No questions that I would like you to reply to.

1. Does Canonical have a history of withholding the source of projects under their CLA from any contributor or user?

2. Has Canonical redistributed any of those projects under a proprietary licence?

3. Do you have a bias towards or against Canonical?

1.) so far no but most of their projects were bit rotten or failed to gain any traction at all, so unlike this possible case there was absolutely no need to do so
2.) not am aware of either [there could be cases outside the linux distro ubuntu scope]
3.) no i actually used ubuntu for a while and like i said is not evil the dual license but that the risk is that canonical have a really bad track with their projects and now that they can realistically get big bucks from the mobile market it introduces an additional sense of risk for those who expect Mir to be a contender in the FOSS world[assuming is actually worked and released <--i doubt it][im rooting with wayland] since many doubt canonical will fight for copyleft rights in mobile sector if they have to face actual money loss from doing so. For example "hey canonical that new Brand X super cool phone that is hot right now require you to change your licenses cuz imagination don't feel legally secure of using your copyleft wrappers so do it or bye bye" or "Big American Carrier wanna do X and Y to mod their version of ubuntu phone or they reject it and they don't wanna push any code back to repos"

as a note most community ppl including me give a rat ass about canonical projects and most of them never really leaved the ubuntu scope, so if canonical tomorrow do twist with their projects i doubt you see much pressure from FOSS ppl

[jayrulez]

which is essentially what he said. The only thing you are left with is either using the old version or completely start from scratch, as you may not fork the project without KEEPING the CLA which essentially forces the property on you.

That is not true. You may fork any publicly available GPL3 code that is under Canonical's CLA. The CLA only covers code that is contributed to the project under Canonical's control.

The CLA does not take any right from you as the owner or user of the code. It only grants Canonical the right to use your code as they please, e.g: redistributing it under a commercial licence. It does not stop you from doing anything that you can do with any other piece of GPL code. If you are fine with allowing Canonical to commercialize your code, then you are free to sign the agreement and contribute to the project, otherwise, you do not contribute or you can fork the project.

Making that comment shows you are either misinformed on the matter or being dubious by lying outright.