Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61

Thread: Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,417

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    Non-free Contributor agreement forcing contributors to relicense to non-free.
    Where the fuck did you take that from?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canonical
    With the contributor agreement chosen by Canonical, the Harmony CLA, the contributor gives Canonical a licence to use their contributions. The contributor continues to own the copyright in the contribution, with full rights to re-use, re-distribute, and continue modifying the contributed code, allowing them to also share that contribution with other projects.
    http://www.canonical.com/contributors

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nll_a View Post
    Where the fuck did you take that from?



    http://www.canonical.com/contributors
    Honton has been spewing this line for a while now. He is on a mission to bash.
    And totally ignoring the fact that
    1) As per Richard Stallman You are FREE to relicense GPL software
    2) the FSF demands you submit to a CLA and also to sign over the copyright to them.

    SO it would seem that gcc and the entire gnu userspace runs afoul of Honton's reasoning in his crusade to bash others.
    And we know he's going to try in a fruitless attempt to convice us by splitting hairs that the FSF CLA is good but Canonical CLA is bad.
    Its a total red herring arguement. Its all GPL3.....The End.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Cheers to Ubuntu for being sane and not drinking the SystemD kool aid. I would never have thought that I would ever prefer Ubuntu over Arch Linux or OpenSuse but here we are.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rallos Zek View Post
    Cheers to Ubuntu for being sane and not drinking the SystemD kool aid. I would never have thought that I would ever prefer Ubuntu over Arch Linux or OpenSuse but here we are.
    How have I not noticed your name is an EQ reference until now?
    There's always Gentoo for those who don't like sd they are still cooking udev AFAIK.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote 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 at 01:45 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote 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
    ...and Wayland's MIT.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,352

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote 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/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •