Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

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

  • Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

    Phoronix: Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

    With Ubuntu Linux still not relying upon systemd, the Upstart event-based init daemon has seen a new release just ahead of the Ubuntu 13.10 feature freeze...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ0MzM

  • #2
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Read your own link. When you sign this "harmony" thingy, Canonical obtains a broad license for you code. That's as non-free as it gets.
    So, you also think that BSD licences are non-free?
    After all, software that use it can also be relicensed.

    My understanding is that contributing to a project with the CLA is more or less the same as contributing a BSD licensed patch. With the added value[*] of knowing that it will most likely stay GPL for some time.


    [*] assuming that you prefer GPL over BSD
    Last edited by Malizor; 08-23-2013, 01:45 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Honton View Post
      No. Signing the Harmony agreement gives Canonical an exclusive right to relicense to whatever they see fit.
      Ok, it may be a better summary to say that the contribution is BSD in Canonical point of view and $PROJECT_CURRENT_LICENCE (GPLv3 in most cases) for every one else.
      And the contributor remain owner of his patch, so he can also publish it in whatever licence he wants.

      So it's somewhere between GPL and BSD if you prefer. But it's definitely not non-free.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Malizor View Post
        Ok, it may be a better summary to say that the contribution is BSD in Canonical point of view and $PROJECT_CURRENT_LICENCE (GPLv3 in most cases) for every one else. And the contributor remain owner of his patch, so he can also publish it in whatever licence he wants. So it's somewhere between GPL and BSD if you prefer. But it's definitely not non-free.
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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?

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ubuntu non free http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...for-commercial

              Comment


              • #8
                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,

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X