GNOME OS Is Taking Shape But Its To Serve For Testing The Desktop

[higgslagrangian]

Not to sound argumentative, but does Flathub have a Git copy of their website and build service code too?

[... some idiocy that doesn't make sense since your first point was BS...]

Just as others told you, Flathub's development is fully open. GO make a PR, you can modify the build process, code, etc. etc.

By the way, I was not the one arguing that "everything Canonical is GPLv3", that was bregma. And it was false, I simply called him out on that. And never claimed anything about Flathub.

Get it through your skull: Canonical wants to have de-facto control over the gateway to software on Linux. They announced their Snap store in such a sleazy way, making it seem that there was a uniform consensus across distributions about Snap being the universal package format.
It was all charade and BS.

I wouldn't really care if the model were open, like Flatpak/Flathub (by the way, Flathub is just ONE store, and it's easy to build another independent one). Canonical keeps the secret server-side sauce to themselves, and then claim "oh, but you can build your own!". That's such BS.

So, again, bregma, since Canonical is all GPLv3, where is the source for the Snap Store?

[higgslagrangian]

If you read fedoramagazine regularly, you'd know exactly what I was talking about.

No, you are the one making claims. Rahul didn't, neither did I.

So *you* bring the facts to the table.

[RahulSundaram]

I gave you the source. Look it up yourself. You're the one debating it.

No, that's not how that works. You made the claim, so prove it

[RahulSundaram]

If you read fedoramagazine regularly, you'd know exactly what I was talking about.

I do read it regularly and you still haven't provided a single link to validate your claims

[Giovanni Fabbro]

Just as others told you, Flathub's development is fully open. GO make a PR, you can modify the build process, code, etc. etc.

By the way, I was not the one arguing that "everything Canonical is GPLv3", that was bregma. And it was false, I simply called him out on that. And never claimed anything about Flathub.

Get it through your skull: Canonical wants to have de-facto control over the gateway to software on Linux. They announced their Snap store in such a sleazy way, making it seem that there was a uniform consensus across distributions about Snap being the universal package format.
It was all charade and BS.

I wouldn't really care if the model were open, like Flatpak/Flathub (by the way, Flathub is just ONE store, and it's easy to build another independent one). Canonical keeps the secret server-side sauce to themselves, and then claim "oh, but you can build your own!". That's such BS.

So, again, bregma, since Canonical is all GPLv3, where is the source for the Snap Store?

Where is Flathub's server source code for their back-end build services? All I see is a manual review process by the admins, and a manifest is created that builds it automatically. Do THEY have a manifest and source code tree of what the service does to build those packages? All I see is references to them linking to your own github repo once you put a request in.

Why are you being so defensive and insulting anyway? I only stated that Flathub has no link to their back-end service code for their site. I guess Canonical doesn't either, given your own argument (I can't be bothered to look into it anyway), but then say that you can build your own Snap store along with your own Flatpak store, so....

What's your problem again?

[Giovanni Fabbro]

No, you are the one making claims. Rahul didn't, neither did I.

So *you* bring the facts to the table.

I did brings facts to the table.

[bregma]

GPLv3 is only free for the developer, not the user. That's the difference between it and a license like BSD. GPLv3 is about preserving the ego of the developer rather than giving the user the choice of what they want to do with the code. Torvalds didn't like the restrictions of the v3, which is why the kernel stuck with v2. The most free license is a zero-clause BSD, essentially public domain.

You have it completely backwards. BSD and other licenses care about maximizing the freedom of the developer. The intent of the GPL is to maximize the freedom of the user of the software.

Let's say ElectroBrother sells you an EverWatch Pro voice-activated networked home assistant based on BSD-licensed software. You can't see inside, you can't reconfigure, you can't replace the software. Now let's say it is running GPL software: by the terms of the license, you have to have access to the software source *and* you have to be able to replace the software with something that doesn't listen for keywords during casual conversation. The GPL is there to guarantee freedom for the user. The BSD license is there to make sure the developer gets cedit for taking that freedom away from the user.

Also, now you know why most corporations dislike the GPL. It reduces their ability to exploit the consumer in lucrative ways because the consumer is free to not be exploited.

The main difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 is the patent clause. Embedded device manufacturers dislike that with extreme prejudice because by combining GPLv3 software with their hardware, it basically forces all their patents to be licensed. A lot of those people make a lot of money having their lawyers trade patents for a fat ripe fee. Many of the customers I deal with these days would grudgingly accept GPLv2 but run screaming from GPLv3.

I think Linux chose GPLv2-only for a number of reasons. One is that embedded Linux is a big thing and he want to see his firstborn used as widely as possible. The other is that many contributions were made under the GPLv2 and it's not tractable to find every contribution author and have them re-license their contribution. Moment is a harsh mistress.

Anyway, I think you'd be hard-pressed to justify your position that GPL is all about the ego of the developer. It's not about the code and whose name goes on it, it's about the software and who controls the hardware it runs on.

[bregma]

bregma FSF comes with two promises. They will never relicense to non-Free. They will always use the gained copyright to take legal actions against copyright infringements. That’s the most convenient truth.

Canonical? They make no such promises. That’s the most inconvenient truth.

So the CLA makes it no different than say a BSD license, but for Canonical only. If you're so stridently against open source licenses like the BSD or MIT or Apache licenses, then you are justified being appalled. Also, if any copyright holder chose to relicense their GPL software under private terms for a fee, as is allowed by the GPL, you should be appalled. In fact, You should condemn the GPL itself for not being free enough.

I think the CLA is perfectly reasonable. I see nothing wrong with a project being run in such a way as to prevent one individual from holding the entire project hostage on a vexation whim just by making one single contribution. I see that as the far greater evil.

Then again, we do not have to agree.

[higgslagrangian]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Red Hat also do that with the products under their own brand?

Well, looking back I see that you came into this thread swinging left and right, spreading ignorance and idiocy.

In your above post, you asked to be corrected if you were wrong. Well, guess what? You were wrong. You were corrected, and didn't like it.

It will be better for you to keep your mouth shut and look dumb, than open it and keep proving it to everyone else.

[RahulSundaram]

So the CLA makes it no different than say a BSD license, but for Canonical only. If you're so stridently against open source licenses like the BSD or MIT or Apache licenses, then you are justified being appalled. Also, if any copyright holder chose to relicense their GPL software under private terms for a fee, as is allowed by the GPL, you should be appalled. In fact, You should condemn the GPL itself for not being free enough.

This is increasingly a strawman. If a commercial entity is sole copyright holder, no external license applies to them and they can choose to do whatever they want with the software. Although BSD is a permissive license, it isn't quite the same. If a software happens to be permissive for everyone, that is an entirely different situation because everyone is in the same footing. If someone holds all of the copyright, there is nothing any software license can do to prevent that. The notion that one should condemn a license for the inability to prevent it is absurd.