91–97 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wayland is not under such licences. It uses the MIT license.
I think bad_user is talking about Mir: it's licensed under GPLv3 [1].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yeah, all of those Wayland developers: https://github.com/nobled/wayland/graphs/contributors I'm not equating Canonical with open source, I'm equating what they're making with open source. Because it is. What are you even talking about?
I don't know how github generates that data, but if you page through this: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland/log/?qt=author&q... It paints a very different picture about the distribution of authorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague You didn't say that. > saying people should lighten up You didn't say that, either. Which is good, because "lighten up" is not, has never been, and will never be a reasonable thing to say to anyone, anytime, anywhere. Your original comment wasn't unreasonable. Where you started going off the ra…
I am pretty sure I did say these things. But nevermind. More importantly I don't think I'm guilty of nearly the malice you ascribed to me, and a part of me is wondering where you are based on the off chance we can share a beverage of your choice and you can see I'm not a monster. Is it the thread from last week that has you angry at me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am pretty sure I did say these things. But nevermind. More importantly I don't think I'm guilty of nearly the malice you ascribed to me, and a part of me is wondering where you are based on the off chance we can share a beverage of your choice and you can see I'm not a monster. Is it the thread from last week that has you angry at me?
I didn't even know who you were until your third comment, which sounded eerily familiar. And there are certainly no circumstances under which I would voluntarily associate with someone who displays your pattern of lashing out whenever they don't understand something.
In the meantime I think there is a phrase you used to describe me, something along the lines of "willful misinterpretation"; I believe you may have done the same for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think bad_user is talking about Mir: it's licensed under GPLv3 [1].
My point was more that license was no reason, Wayland already has a good license. Mir is first under a different license to then require a special CLA to be able to license it differently. In Wayland everyone has the same rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is something Canonical should have considered before developing they're own display server. The community attitude from the start seems to generally be "we won't carry support upstream", so this doesn't seem unreasonable.
Who's saying Canonical hasn't considered this? If this truly reflects the community attitude towards a new open source project than that is an awful thing. No one is saying it, but Wayland is just a display server, and worse, it's just a display server that's been developed on by just one guy in what is clearly his spare time. For years, and it's still not something we can readily use. If instead of Canonical this wa…
If we want big hardware players like nvidia and intel to take us seriously, we must behave in a professional manner, and one of the biggest players in the space creating an incompatible fork on such a fundamental piece of architecture five years after a similar project began making inroads, basically because "We don't have anyone smart enough to understand Wayland", is _not_ professional.
Maybe this would've been justified after Wayland support went mainstream, but all Canonical has accomplished by the release and announcement of Mir is the further entrenchment of X11 by accentuating what a horrendous wreck it is to attempt to remove it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more direct and clear to state the real problem. The real problem isn't the AGPL or the GPLv3, as both of those licenses can be very good in the right context. The real problem is copyright assignment to companies like Canonical, as in practice that is equivalent to dual licensing where the second license is "let this company do whatever the fuck they want".
As I said, the intentions are good, but in practice these licenses are used as an actual incentive for companies to purchase the commercial alternative for redistribution.
Saying "licenses such as AGPL and GPLv3 are hurting open-source" is complete and utter FUD. A non-FUD way of saying it would be something like, "copyright assignment to for-profit corporations hurts the free software movement".
If there is no copyright assignment to a mischievous corporation, then GPLv3 is practically strictly superior to GPLv2 in terms of software freedom.