Originally posted by Honton
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu Edge Campaign Set To Close At $12M USD
Collapse
X
-
-
CLA's are irrelevant. If some software is published under GPL, that version will always be GPL forever and ever, even if the developer changes the license to whatever in the next release - even if the next release is fully proprietary and closed, the last GPL-licensed version will always stay GPL and available for forking and continued development.
If CLA of GPL'd software bothers someone that much, fork the project and don't demand CLA's from anyone. It's within your rights, as outlined by the GPL. Frankly, in all but some corner cases, CLA is irrelevant, and some jurisdictions may even take it as implied, even without an explicit CLA.
There are 6001 good and valid reasons why Mir sucks donkey dick, so let's not focus on the frivolities.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bkor View PostGNOME does have to spend time on it. This is what was explained in the last 50 articles about Mir and what I said in my previous comment already. Saying "it does not have to" is very unrealistic. Are you actually a developer?
And this does NOT relate to what Unity 8 is based on.
Comment
-
Originally posted by matzipan View PostAs for Mir and Unity? Nobody forces you to use any of them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by omer666 View PostIf only things were that simple, we would not be complaining. Ubuntu means great userbase, nobody would argue on that it I think. This includes gaming, as Steam focusing on Ubuntu confirmed recently. Then, there are nVidia and AMD and their proprietary drivers. For what display server do you think they'll develop ? The answer is not the point here, the point is that they won't do it for both. And I think everybody agrees on one thing : the ultimate goal is to do without X as quick as possible. Do you think that kind of decision would allow it ? I don't.
Comment
-
Originally posted by andydread View PostThe CLA argument is a red herring arguement. The FSF demands you sumbit to a CLA for all work contributed to GNU. So I guess you don't run any GNU operating systems then? Its one thing to hate Canonical and Shuttleworth however blowing things out of proportion and spreading misinformation without any proof that CLA are non-free because of the nature of them is not helping your cause and is quite frankly ridiculous given the position of the FSF regrarding your so-called non-free CLA http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by bkor View PostFSF guarantees that it will stay under a free software license. Canonical does not. The entire purpose of the Canonical CLA is to ensure it can be made proprietary. I think any CLA is bad, but don't use FSF as an example, as they're different.
Sharing copyrights with one or multiple third parties pretty much reinforces the guaranties that something stays under a free software license (but not exclusively under such a license).
Comment
-
Originally posted by erendorn View PostOriginal contributor keeps its copyright, so in order to make some under-CLA software proprietary, Canonical would have to convince every single contributor to revoke the GPL license of their contribution.
Comment
Comment