Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online)
Posted Jan 26, 2009 0:04 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
I suspect everyone on LWN would breathe a sigh of relief if you just
*stopped commenting* when Canonical or Ubuntu was mentioned. I suspect
most Fedora contributors probably would, too: the distro having a rep
as 'the distro the obsessional conspiracy theorists contribute to' is
probably *not* what they would prefer. (I don't know if you really are an
obsessional conspiracy theorist, but I've known a few and you're acting
just like they do.)
For goodness sake *give it a rest*.
(The annoying thing is I can't even killfile you because a few percent of
your comments, those not related to Canonical or Ubuntu in any way, really
Posted Jan 26, 2009 17:29 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted Jan 26, 2009 22:29 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted Jan 26, 2009 23:27 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Yes "Originally developed" was the phrase used. So yes I was hmm'ing about Canonical's role there. Why am I hmm'ing? Because I was under the impression that this was a Canonical developed codebase. Why was I under that impression?
My reading of http://upstart.ubuntu.com/wiki/CopyrightAssignment
The assignment to Canonical isn't something I would have expected to see in a project that was original developed on personal time. Sure assigning copyright to a nonprofit like the FSF or asking contributors to assign copyright to the main developer, that I can see for a personal project. But when I see copyright assignment requirements to a for-profit corporate entity like Canonical that implies to me that the company had a hand in paying for the original development of the work. It's not proof of course, just an implication.
The developer even talks about the copyright assignment to Canonical here:
Saying its the same assignment required by bzr, and again my understanding is that bzr was originally developed on Canonical's dime. This doesn't prove that Canonical paid for the original Upstart development time, but its what I took away from the requiring the Canonical copyright assignment.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with the copyright assignment either. If the original developer wants to sign over copyright assignment to Canonical and give Canonical the power to re-license the codebase on whatever terms it sees fits as a corporate entity, even if the codebase originated on volunteer time, that's totally within his rights to do.
Also my previous reading of
specifically lists the original developer as a Canonical employee instead of just a Ubuntu community member and that again implied to me that it was a Canonical development.
Why does it matter? I fully expect that the History of Ubuntu to be a category on Jeopardy in ten years so I want to make sure I get all the trivia correct.
Posted Jan 27, 2009 5:34 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Posted Jan 27, 2009 6:50 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Look I didn't bring it up, I was just expressing the fact that the assertion that Upstart was initially a volunteer effort without Canonical backing seemed odd. If I were angling to beat up Canonical about it, I'd be on the other side of the discussion, trying to argue that this is an example of Canonical not contributing...which the exact opposite of what I thought the situation was.
And point of fact, another person has also chimed in that the original assertion is false. Unlike most everyone else, I've putting my opinion in context by citing the reference material which influenced how I formed that opinion. It would have been nice if the original assertion and come with an authoritative reference. Are you okay with people making unsupported assertions and treating them like facts? I'm more than happy to be shown an authoritative source material that Canonical didn't pay for the development time for Upstart, but until then I'm giving Canonical the benefit of the doubt.
Posted Jan 27, 2009 7:35 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
I have no doubt that you believe you're arguing objectively and in good faith, on important questions regarding Canonical.
However, it's completely missing the point: You are a prominent member of the Fedora community (possibly even an officer of it of some sort, I don't know). It reflects very badly on you - and anybody you represent, by extension - when you wage a bad-mouthing campaign against rivals on forums. However well-founded your bad-mouthing might be doesn't matter.
Your socio-political standing means it is NOT YOUR PLACE to launch such direct criticisms. Rather make them indirectly by promoting those *positive* aspects of your distro which contrast with what you feel is lacking in others. E.g. "More developers get paid to work on Fedora", or whatever your point is. Leave any direct criticism to 3rd parties (e.g. LWN editors) who have at least semblence of impartiality.
Please, please stop..
1. On the flip-side: if it's not well-founded, it reflects even more poorly on you. Though I suspect many people now ignore any of your comments containing the words "Canonical" or "Ubuntu"..
Posted Jan 27, 2009 8:02 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted Jan 29, 2009 14:18 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
I hadn't noticed that Fedora was in a state of war, or any kind of emergency that precludes its members, albeit high-standing ones, of criticizing it.
Lucky Debian, in which _really_ high-standing ones can criticize the project at will and with impunity.
Posted Jan 27, 2009 23:12 UTC (Tue) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545)
Mom: What about?
Child: Not doing my homework!
Mom: Did you do your homework?
Child: Ummm. No...
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds