Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

opensource.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 334 posts

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#91

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #22
hollerith wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ADDED. Looks like this comment and its replies have no relevance to the Fuchsia project: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25348935 You used to not be able to contribute to most GNU projects (maybe you still can't) without assigning copyright ownership to the FSF. I don't see what practical difference the assignment to Google will make. Without using the words "equality", "between equals" and "sharecropper", can y…

If I want to distribute derivative works of the Linux kernel, I need to release those works to all. My competitors can take advantage of this, but in the end they are bound by similar rules. This produces a feedback loop in which contributions back may be used by everyone under pretty much equal terms. If you assign your copyright to Google, they may make use of those changes and integrate them into further developme…

> If I want to distribute derivative works of the Linux kernel, I need to release those works to all.

This is false. The GPL does not require you to make source code available to anybody who asks, only those you distribute the software too (in source or binary form).

If you modify a GPL'ed application and then distribute that to 3 friends, those friends have the right to ask for the (modified) source code. Nobody else does.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#92

Post by hollerith »

jononor wrote: post #35
hollerith wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I am aware, the only times contributions were not incorporated were because the work was done by under the terms of an employment contract with the result that the employer ended up owning the copyright, then the employer decided not to sign the CLA. Can you think of a single instance in which code written by an individual contributor not bound by an employment contract was prevented from being incorporated…

That is a significant limitation. A considerable amount of open source software is written while people are employed, as part of their work.

Sure, but no open-source project wants contributions by contributors who do not legally own the code because in that case the actual owner of the code can petition the court to issue an injuction on the project preventing further distribution of the code till the offending code is removed from the project. (They can also sue any user of the project for damages.)

Wikipedia has to worry about the same thing, BTW: contributors who upload text whose copyright is owned by some entity who never consented to the upload, and they have policies in procedures in place to correct it when it happens.

It's not like CLA's are the only obstacle to employees contributing to the open-source projects. In fact, you might say that the main purpose of a CLA is to surface copyright-ownership problems early, when the cost of correcting them is lower.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#93

Post by jmnicolas »

actuator wrote: post #79
jmnicolas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah the base open sources Android is barely usable. Even simple things like getting a local notification at the right time are not a given. If they do the same with Fuschia, they'd better make it closed sources then.

Sorry, not familiar with Android core. For your example, how would it work without proprietary technologies? AFAIK, Android uses GCM for notifications. Adding integrations for it don't seem to make much sense in core open source Android as that will make you tied to Google's ecosystem.

I was speaking about _local_ notifications, not push: some clock / reminder apps never fire notifications or way too late. I think it's because the OS aggressively shutdown apps running in background.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#94

Post by Arelius »

wojciii wrote: post #78
methodsignature wrote: post #45

So maybe open source, [mostly] closed ecosystem? Add a bunch of Spyware from Google and get every app maker to add a dependency to Google services and they are golden for the collection of data on all your "smart" things Sorry/not sorry for the cynicism; I feel it is warranted given what "open source" means on Android. Google talking like they have noble open source ambitions means nothing. They have a lot of amends…

Thank you for writing this so that I don't have to. :) This would probably be a good time to mention https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr .

Can you give extra context? It's unclear to me how Zephyr relates other than being an operating system. It doesn't on initial look seem to be designed with the same goals as Fuchsia.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#95

Post by mushufasa »

hortense wrote: post #90

Anyone else bothered by the black banner saying "Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities" in technical documentation ( https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/contribute/roadmap ) ? This is simply an advertisement for Google, and just like any other advertisement it has nothing to do in technical documentation, especially in a project where they want other companies to contribute.

I'm not bothered -- I like it. I would like it even more if they acted upon the claim.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#96

Post by duskwuff »

hollerith wrote: post #19
brandmeyer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux itself has never been a GNU project and has never required copyright assignment. It is the combination of features (retain ownership and GPL) together that has enabled collaboration in Linux.

Are you saying that collaboration on Gnu Compiler Collection, binutils, bash, bison, CLISP, coreutils, etc, has been inhibited by the requirement for copyright assignment to the FSF?

I'm sure it has. It's an additional hurdle that developers have to clear before they get their code included upstream -- it would be extremely surprising if there weren't some number of developers who gave up at that point.

(It doesn't help that the FSF's processes for copyright assignment are incredibly clunky. It was a big deal when they started accepting scanned papers in 2012, for example.)

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#97

Post by aidenn0 »

hollerith wrote: post #19
brandmeyer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux itself has never been a GNU project and has never required copyright assignment. It is the combination of features (retain ownership and GPL) together that has enabled collaboration in Linux.

Are you saying that collaboration on Gnu Compiler Collection, binutils, bash, bison, CLISP, coreutils, etc, has been inhibited by the requirement for copyright assignment to the FSF?

Only one datapoint, but I have refrained from contributing to GNU partly[1] because of the copyright assignment requirement, while having committed to many other open-source projects I use.

1: TBH it's hard to tease apart the cultural aspects from the legal. Most GNU projects were roughly "We'll post a tarball once in a while and not have public CVS" when I first started getting involved in OSS; projects with public CVS it was a lot easier to tell if someone was already was working on something, particularly for people as shy as I was back then; I got the impression that the "proper" thing to do would be to introduce yourself on the mailing list, propose the idea, &c. and then start working on a patch.

My particular combination of low-confidence and misanthropy steered me away from such projects.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#98

Post by SquareWheel »

hortense wrote: post #90

Anyone else bothered by the black banner saying "Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities" in technical documentation ( https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/contribute/roadmap ) ? This is simply an advertisement for Google, and just like any other advertisement it has nothing to do in technical documentation, especially in a project where they want other companies to contribute.

Not bothered in the least.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#99

Post by mushufasa »

jmnicolas wrote: post #56
methodsignature wrote: post #45

So maybe open source, [mostly] closed ecosystem? Add a bunch of Spyware from Google and get every app maker to add a dependency to Google services and they are golden for the collection of data on all your "smart" things Sorry/not sorry for the cynicism; I feel it is warranted given what "open source" means on Android. Google talking like they have noble open source ambitions means nothing. They have a lot of amends…

yeah the base open sources Android is barely usable. Even simple things like getting a local notification at the right time are not a given. If they do the same with Fuschia, they'd better make it closed sources then.

Same with Darwin and MacOs.

Is there even a functioning darwin build for Big Sur??

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#100

Post by LukeShu »

actuator wrote: post #79
jmnicolas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah the base open sources Android is barely usable. Even simple things like getting a local notification at the right time are not a given. If they do the same with Fuschia, they'd better make it closed sources then.

Sorry, not familiar with Android core. For your example, how would it work without proprietary technologies? AFAIK, Android uses GCM for notifications. Adding integrations for it don't seem to make much sense in core open source Android as that will make you tied to Google's ecosystem.

Because I don't have Google's services on my phone, I have two always-visible notifications that never go away:

"Telegram" / "Push service: tap to learn more" (tapping opens https://github.com/Telegram-FOSS-Team/Telegram-FOSS/blob/mas...)

"Signal" / "Background connection enabled"

Both are serving the same purpose, for different apps. Even before we get to network connections and servers (the things that might make sense to be proprietary), without Google's ecosystem the local side has a bad UX and requires hacks.

Post reply on HN