Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

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

  • LinuxGamer
    replied
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    No it can't. Not by anyone other than the copyright holder.

    You can use BSD-licensed code in proprietary projects, and publish it as binaries without releasing the source, even if you make changes in it, but the license of the code still stays the same, and you have to include the license notice to your (proprietary) software - it's why Mac OS includes the BSD license notice somewhere in its documentation.
    most of it's here? http://www.apple.com/opensource/

    Leave a comment:


  • dee.
    replied
    Originally posted by Malizor View Post
    So, you also think that BSD licences are non-free?
    After all, software that use it can also be relicensed.
    No it can't. Not by anyone other than the copyright holder.

    You can use BSD-licensed code in proprietary projects, and publish it as binaries without releasing the source, even if you make changes in it, but the license of the code still stays the same, and you have to include the license notice to your (proprietary) software - it's why Mac OS includes the BSD license notice somewhere in its documentation.

    Leave a comment:


  • LinuxGamer
    replied
    Originally posted by benalib View Post
    it's not Ubuntu. It's Ubuntu for Android (UfA) based on AOSP
    there is a big difference
    Ubuntu will remain free and open source they can't redistribute it under a commercial license


    "No. UfA is a modified and reduced (in size) Ubuntu distro. We have modified packages and also new code/scripts that is needed to interact with Android. A new distro would have to redo all that work. You cannot just drop another one in"

    "Will developers be able to make these additions to custom ROMs themselves?

    cwayne18Ubuntu for Android

    Many of the additions need to be made with the OEMs, so unfortunately not"

    "Now for commercial versions of UfA, where we work with OEMs, we will respect whatever rules the OEM asks us to follow. Since Android is BSD licensed, it would be unlikely that we would be able to open source the commercial versions."

    Closed Source!! Ubuntu

    Leave a comment:


  • benalib
    replied
    Originally posted by Malizor View Post
    To be fair, this CLA is not used anymore (see the notice at the top of the page).
    But yes, AFAIK it was quite similar to the Canonical CLA.
    how about this
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...utor_Agreement
    and this
    Microsoft?s Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...munity.mspx#E3

    Leave a comment:


  • benalib
    replied
    Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    it's not Ubuntu. It's Ubuntu for Android (UfA) based on AOSP
    there is a big difference
    Ubuntu will remain free and open source they can't redistribute it under a commercial license

    Leave a comment:


  • Malizor
    replied
    Originally posted by liam View Post
    How does this compare to the fedora cla?
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...l/Licenses/CLA
    To be fair, this CLA is not used anymore (see the notice at the top of the page).
    But yes, AFAIK it was quite similar to the Canonical CLA.

    Leave a comment:


  • liam
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    It is a asymmetrical licensing system where one vendor gets the right to relicense under non-free terms but noone else has that right. Standard open source licenses like BSD or GPL don't have such unequal terms. So calling it somewhere in between is misleading. However it isn't straight out non-free licensing either.
    How does this compare to the fedora cla?
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...l/Licenses/CLA

    • 2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the Project:

    • (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative works; and,

    Leave a comment:


  • LinuxGamer
    replied
    Ubuntu non free http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...for-commercial

    Leave a comment:


  • Malizor
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    It is a asymmetrical licensing system where one vendor gets the right to relicense under non-free terms but noone else has that right.
    The contributor also has this right.
    AFAIK, he can also grant it to the whole world if he wants (eg. by publishing the patch with a BSD or MIT licence).
    Last edited by Malizor; 08-23-2013, 02:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mendieta
    replied
    So, the article states:
    With Ubuntu Linux still not relying upon systemd
    (emphasys mine). So, are they planning to switch to systemd? (I certainly hope so). Or am I reading too far between the lines?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X