Ubuntu Planning To Develop Its Own File Manager

[mrugiero]

even Canonical's (they release all their code as GPL3) should Canonical ever "close" their OS.

You have no guarantee of that. Thanks to the CLA, they can choose, if they want, to not release source code for some of their modifications.

I am no lawyer and sure canonical can re licence or sell your contribution but as copyright owner you can to no?

See the difference. As a contributor individual, you own the copyright only for your contribution, which is in most cases useless without the rest of the project, for which you don't have any right to sublicense. As Canonical, you have the right to sublicense the whole project, so you can actually sell proprietary derivatives, while other contributors can't. It's asymmetric, and that's a hard fact, so please stop denying it, contributors don't have the same rights as Canonical with the CLA.

What's more important to me is the license, and as long as it's GPL I think it's fine. I for one don't think I would contribute to a non-copyleft-licensed software.

I really don't understand you here. Why wouldn't you contribute to non-copyleft licensed software? Because someone could close it up? If that's so, I bring you news: with the CLA, Canonical can close up the software. And your workarounds are equally valid for non-copyleft software. You can fork them and make them GPL as well.

Yeah, I don't get why people think it's better to contribute to non-copyleft open source projects with a license allowing any person to make a closed-source application out of it over GPL3 software with a CLA with which you get to keep your copyright and that you can fork anytime to get rid of the CLA boogeyman.

It's quite simple. Most people interested in free software either believe "free" means you have the right to do anything you like with the code, including proprietary derivatives or believe all the derivatives should be kept free, and GPLv3+CLA is against both positions: not everyone can make proprietary derivatives, so it's too restrictive for one paradigm, and there's no way to enforce it's always open, as Canonical (or whichever entity that manages the particular project, in a more general case) have the right to sublicense in a closed way.

I don't think "everyone should have the right to close it up" is a good argument. The less people are allowed to do that, the better.

The least people able to close it up is with plain GPL, not with a CLA.

So the CLA makes it easier for enforcing copyright and stopping GPL violations, hence it's important for Ubuntu.

It doesn't, because it's not a copyright assignment. You still need cooperation of copyright holders to better enforce the license. Otherwise, their enforcement is just as effective as having a single contributor enforcing the license, disregarding the lawyers (as they can contribute with lawyers to help even if they don't own a single line of code; the FSF has done so in occasions), because that's what they have the copyright for: a fraction of the code, not the whole.

Worst case scenario Canonical turns upside down and close Ubuntu down, and we just fork it and keep it open forever.

Same with liberal licenses, so still not a point in favor of CLA.

[pal666]

Before calling others stupid you should learn to read yourself.

before giving me stupid advices, learn to think. anybody can do with their code whatever they want. it is not the point. the point is who can do what with other people's code. with CLA canonical can sell outside contributor's code under proprietary license, while outside contributors can't sell canonical code under proprietary license

[Aleve Sicofante]

man you are stupid. you can release ALLL!!!!111 the code on GPL3 even if it was originally under BSD licence. the point is who gets the right to release ALLLLL!!!!!111 the code under proprietary licence. and answer is: only canonical. canonical gets to fuck everyone else.
on the other hand with BSD everyone can release ALLL!!!!!111 the code under proprietary licence - i.e. all contributors are equal.
with GPL3 nobody can, so again all contributors are equal.
with GPL3+CLA all outside contributors are anal slaves of canonical.

Calm down, pal. It's you who's looking terribly stupid.

Nobody cares what Canonical releases as closed source, as long as everyone has access to the original source, which is guaranteed. Do you get it now? IF Canonical extends the software and closes it, that's THEIR extension. I'm fine with that and so are probably all the people you simply can't understand because it's beyond your IQ.

[mrugiero]

Calm down, pal. It's you who's looking terribly stupid.

Nobody cares what Canonical releases as closed source, as long as everyone has access to the original source, which is guaranteed. Do you get it now? IF Canonical extends the software and closes it, that's THEIR extension. I'm fine with that and so are probably all the people you simply can't understand because it's beyond your IQ.

Some people cares, and actually it seems most developers care, seeing how few external contributions most of their projects have (which is quite weird considering Ubuntu is one of the most popular distributions, if not THE most popular one). And they care because, while Canonical can close THEIR extensions, other people can't close THEIR OWN extensions, and some people think that's unfair, and I'm included in such a group of people, and the author of Upstart, too. And while fairness is subjective, symmetry is not, and it's objectively asymmetrical, as in not everyone having the same rights.

[pal666]

Nobody cares what Canonical releases as closed source

nobody from clueless phoronix kids - sure. nobody from people to whom CLA does apply, i.e. outside contributors ? think again kid, why there are so little outside contributors attracted by canonical projects. they even explicitly say that it is CLA preventing them from participating, because adult people do not like jobs without wage. and you counted nobody - it shows that you are unable to count.

[Tgui]

nobody from clueless phoronix kids - sure. nobody from people to whom CLA does apply, i.e. outside contributors ? think again kid, why there are so little outside contributors attracted by canonical projects. they even explicitly say that it is CLA preventing them from participating, because adult people do not like jobs without wage. and you counted nobody - it shows that you are unable to count.

Kid? As far as I can tell, all the childish name calling and refrences to anal play are coming from you. Is this really how you interract with people in real life? You can make your points without being a total insufferable jerk.

[Aleve Sicofante]

Some people cares, and actually it seems most developers care, seeing how few external contributions most of their projects have (which is quite weird considering Ubuntu is one of the most popular distributions, if not THE most popular one). And they care because, while Canonical can close THEIR extensions, other people can't close THEIR OWN extensions, and some people think that's unfair, and I'm included in such a group of people, and the author of Upstart, too. And while fairness is subjective, symmetry is not, and it's objectively asymmetrical, as in not everyone having the same rights.

That's fine. You're not contributing to Ubuntu. Others are.

How many? You should bring numbers along and compare equally relevant projects, otherwise this is pure chitchat.

Actually if really very little people is contributing to Canonical, we must conclude Canonical is a really generous company, since they are putting out there a lot of GPL 3 code themselves with very little outside help, right?

[pal666]

Yes, it's asymmetric. The money Canonical puts into its development, advertising and marketing is also quite asymmetric from what I put. Most free software doesn't go very far because it lacks resources for development, advertising and marketing. Canonical puts that money.

this is ridiculous. canonical has one and a half developers. most of what they sell is developed by other people. often by people, employed by their competitors. it is indeed asymmetric but the other way around - it is canonical, who takes free ride with other people's money.

[pal666]

[QUOTE=nll_a;394552]

that's how you're gonna talk

you failed at understanding other kinds of talk

[Aleve Sicofante]

Dude, if that's how you're gonna talk, talk to my hand.

Kid? As far as I can tell, all the childish name calling and refrences to anal play are coming from you. Is this really how you interract with people in real life? You can make your points without being a total insufferable jerk.

Guys: don't feed the troll.