Conversation
Notices
-
!OMG: Mark Shuttleworth talks about Project Harmony, !Unity and more (at the "Ask Mark" session at the !Ubuntu Open Week) http://goo.gl/DYF3
- Jonas Jared Jacek repeated this.
-
#Shuttleworth, @sabdfl of !Ubuntu finally admits to #Open_Core plans for !Canonical , Ltd. I wrote a blog post about it: http://ur1.ca/23h7z
-
@bkuhn one correction in the blog post, Mark Shuttleworth made those comments here: http://ur1.ca/23he7 just thought you should know :)
-
@bkuhn most emphatically not in an interview with OMG! They just formatted the transcript to look like one. please correct.
-
@bkuhn I find it extremely sad that your blog does not allow comments. I am not willing break my comment in 140 char fragments. :-(
-
@gotunandan, thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed blog post (& credited you with pointing it out). OMG !Ubuntu's reformatting confused me.
-
@ovidius, if you wanna implement something to hook unlimited.status.net up, I'm open to it. If you write own blog on topic, I'll link to it.
-
@alanbelltolc, @gotunandan already pointed that out a little bit ago. It's been fixed. I was confused on that point due to the formatting.
-
@bkuhn no problem. Your posts are highly informative and are a good read :)
-
@bkuhn it ends with "(which was republished by"; a remnant of an edit aborted by the phone ringing, perhaps?
-
@liw, cut & paste error. I had more typo bugs in this blog post than any in recent memory, but I think I've now closed them all now. :)
-
@bkuhn ... far *out* I find this phenomenally sad. Great people, sadly doing such short-sighted things. :-(
Bradley M. Kuhn likes this. -
♻ @bkuhn #Shuttleworth, @sabdfl of !Ubuntu finally admits to #Open_Core plans for !Canonical | spot sez you must read: http://ur1.ca/23h7z
Bradley M. Kuhn likes this. -
@bkuhn Nice detective work. I suspect many would have missed this otherwise.
Bradley M. Kuhn likes this. -
@joshbressers, Thanks! Obviously #Open_Core is a bit of an obsession for me & @webmink, so we keep a eye on this (as @methoddan would say).
-
@bkuhn that's the only thing that offsets my disappointment at times. red hat grew up. novell grew up. canonical, hopefully, will too.
-
@bkuhn Isn't this looking for something that may even not be there? Your dent was about Shuttleworth admitting plans! He never has!
-
@bkuhn I find this really bizarre. A long blog post and then a slew of commentary purporting to know what Canonical/Mark thinks about an...
-
@bkuhn issue w/out actually confirming real evidence to support it. Just allegations based on interpretation
-
@bkuhn I work for Canonical and am familiar w/ exactly ZERO conversations abt plans to embrace open core. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Etc.
-
@mjasay @bkuhn My question would be: If Qt is that awesome, why are you using Gnome for the main edition of Ubuntu?
Bradley M. Kuhn likes this. -
@bkuhn "Not all contributors are equal" bullcrap. Shuttleworth has been posting about that too. Very #disturbing.
-
@bkuhn Excellent blog post, BTW. :)
Bradley M. Kuhn likes this. -
@bkuhn: That last point is a valid one, but that does not mean you can conclude that Canonical has a plan to do OpenCore, with this little.
-
@fabsh: Just to add to the convo. I love Qt, but I think KDE is ugly! I like Qt because it makes applications native, unlike Gtk which looks
-
♺ @fabsh: @bkuhn "Not all contributors are equal" bullcrap. Shuttleworth has been posting about that too. Very #disturbing.
-
@bkuhn Why should they have to make a promise to anyone? They're not accountable to you.
-
@bkuhn Possibly not so much an admission as a failure to deny it. I do however agree with the factual inaccuracies in his statements re Qt.
-
@bkuhn Well, he's never said it outright, at least not on his blog. Reading all of his posts definitely give me that gist though....
-
@bkuhn ingenious way to do 'Sorry in Advance'. While the topic is rather #disturbing, your phrasing always makes me LOL.
-
@bkuhn I have to admit, I don't really understand what that means. You mean they won't promise licence perpetuity? Might change it?
-
@silner Yes: I think 'absence of proof is not proof of absence' applies here. I'll wait for more conclusive evidence, whilst being cautious.
-
@robconnolly, I've admitted I'm reading btw the lines. But, !Canonical actions on this now suggest no other plausible & logical conclusion.
-
@toros you missed a detail with Qt: the KDE Free Qt Foundation always guaranteed that Qt would remain free.
Jure Repinc (JLP) likes this. -
@robconnolly, "Harmony" campaign & misrepresentations of !FSF assignment's already dangerous, #disturbing & #problematic even bf what's next
-
@bkuhn Hmmm, #disturbing yes, I'm not sure about #problematic. All the code is free, and canonical is a small company.
William Chambers likes this. -
@eean That only arrived much later, for years KDE operated without such promise (and Qt was under a GPL incompatible license). So GNOME came
-
@oliviercrete did you read the article? it implies that Qt was unchecked "Open Core" until the recent decision to drop copyright assignment
-
@bkuhn You are mixing up 'open core' with 'dual licensing' (specifically dual-licensing with FOSS and a proprietary options)
William Chambers likes this. -
@bkuhn Can you explain why you think Qt model is open core? It is just dual licensing. No?
-
@oliviercrete It's more about unfortunate timing IMHO: KDE started end of 1996, the Free-Qt Foundation in 1998, GNOME 1997 (1.0 in 1999).
-
@dneary, it seems to me it's only possible explanation of this year long campaign of theirs. If I'm wrong & they make a promise back, great!
-
@rahulsundaram,I don't think proprietary relicensing in its pure form is sustainable. It always drifts toward open core over time;Qt did IMO
-
@bkuhn I don't think Qt ever did. A endorsement of the Qt model is not a endorsement of open core IMO. RMS advocated it to Trolltech
-
@rahulsundaram, I don't fully agree w/ @rms on this. IMO proprietary relicensing isn't 100% benign. You read RMS' new essay on this, BTW?
-
@eean, I did miss that detail; I wasn't aware of that. Can you give me a URL to read? I'll update the article after I've read it. Thanks!
-
@bkuhn Yes. I don't necessarily agree with RMS either. Just pointing you shouldn't imply that support for selling exceptions to open core
-
@bkuhn Was only a guarantee that the latest version released under a libre license would always be available under such a license IIRC.
-
@bkuhn That said, it's not like back in the days Qt was seeing much outside contributions (to my knowledge at least).
-
@ervin That's plain copyleft. The foundation ensures a "dead-man switch": if Qt becomes unmaintained or proprietary, it would become BSD.
-
@eean Sure, never implied the contrary.
-
@ervin you said "only"! but ok whatev :)
-
@eean Hence the "only", yes it's a dead-man switch, but still proprietary derivatives could contain contributed code.
-
@ervin the foundation is making sure future versions of Qt as-we-know-it remain open. nothing to do with enforcing GPL for already-released
-
@bkuhn surprised you use term "open core"—vague, can be orthogonal to assignment—how about admits to proprietary plans—the point & problem.
-
@bkuhn I wrote my thoughts on your post down: http://publiusnaso.blogspot.com/2010/10/on-true-motives-some-remarks-on.html
-
@bkuhn Anything which labeled "open source" where software freedom is not present-by-rule annoys me, not just open core.
-
@bkuhn I agree Canonical must guarantee copyleft, but are your false headlines, like their dodging Free Software principles, going too far?
-
@webmink OS minus freedom is the FreeSoftwareFoundation's big issue with the open source idea, in general, right?
-
@algotruneman Yes, although incorrectly since free without freedom is just a big an issue.
-
@skyphyr, Commentors already convinced me headline was an exaggeration but changing it seemed disingenuous; I added clarification to body.
-
@bkuhn It was good linkbait. Very skillfully done.... :)
-
@webmink,we agree on that. Ppl believe I'm confusing "Open Core" w/ other forms of proprietary relicensing;Working on a blog post to clarify
-
@ovidius, I added a response to you on my own blog ( ur1.ca/23h7z ). You require GoogleAcct like I require identi.ca account to comment. :)
-
@bkuhn I disagree that Canonical corp. targets "open core" over more proprietary forms. If the mgmt. figures out how, they'll go that way.
-
@bkuhn Is teh Goog federated? If not, then your analogy fails. Non-status.net accounts can comment...
-
@fabsh, I didn't plan it that way, unless it was subconscious. When I wrote it, I was fully convinced in a "Sherlock Holmes" sort of way.
-
@jasonriedy, I agree w/ you re: federation, but people who don't use status.net are quite annoyed by "lack of ability to comment" on my blog
-
@bkuhn Apologies for confusing terminology: I mean the status.net *sites*. Other OStatus-supporting sites should work...
-
@bkuhn you blog requires status.net acct to comment? thats excellent. I never noticed bc I dont comment.
-
@jasonriedy, Yes, but still,number of OStatus-supporting sites is small. Ppl have a legitimate complaint, even if it is one I don't agree w/
-
@bkuhn I suppose you could add OpenID support. That way, people could use famous-name sites also.
-
@lnxwalt280, does OStatus support OpenID? Is there an easy AJAX-ish way that I could let them login with either & comment there?
-
@bkuhn I receive Google Buzz updates from a friend (eventually, and repeated, but...), so it's not *that* small.
-
@bkuhn @evan @support Oh, a drive-by OpenID status.net account could be useful. Distrib. OpenID<->OStatus host mapping... hm.
-
@bkuhn Not sure. We'd need to ask @support@identi.ca that question: Does OStatus support OpenID? Would OpenID users be …
-
@tuxdotking, @rms has written at least 2 essays on the topic of proprietary relicensing. Here's the 2 I know of: ur1.ca/j9vt ur1.ca/1ubir
-
@bkuhn Thanks - for the warning about !Ubuntu, and for a clear explanation of licensing issues. I learnt a few things.
Bradley M. Kuhn likes this. -
@bkuhn Blech. @support, please take a look at unlimited.status.net and let's start cleaning up a bit there.
-
@lnxwalt280 Probably not right now. It's not really what we built StatusNet for, but it might be something we could support.
-
@bkuhn This is a great thread! Thanks for starting it here.
-
@bkuhn Cool! I think we'll have something that works well, incl. federation, for that soon. With 1-line JS include, is the plan.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@robconnolly Comparing Canonical copyright assignment with FSF copyright assignment is definitely #problematic.
-
@fontana I'm not clear on that: @hbons writing SparkleShare in C# was #disturbing. If it was #problematic, too, @bkuhn didn't say so.
-
@evan That sounds great. :-D
-
@bkuhn I totally believe you. :)
-
@fontana I guess it depends on your perspective, #problematic is more of practical concern I guess. cc: @bkuhn
-
@clacke Yes, I guess you could say that!
-
@fontana My take: They are two dimensions, although non-orthogonal. #disturbing gives me a bad feeling, #problematic causes problems.
-
@bkuhn #opencore dilemma: Improvements to the core compete with your direct business. In #relicensing case: competes with paying customers.
-
@bkuhn Conclusion: #selling #exceptions can be transformed to #opencore in polynomial time and is therefore the same class of problems. ;-)
Richard Fontana likes this. -
@evan I'm on it!
-
@bkuhn Ah, right, sorry.
-
@evan including federation ... awesome!!!
-
@evan Awesome idea! Me want too! :D
-
@bkuhn I understand, just don't see what talking about #Open_Core adds -- they (Canonical in this case) want #proprietary biz end of story.
-
@bkuhn identi.ca supports OpenID, but no one has built a magic inlining thing. Could be done. http://sngpl.ma/t48M4
-
@jdub During the apartheid era in South Africa, the country's motto was "Unity is Strenght". How's that for irony ;)
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the