Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions pageRecent Features
| |||||||||||||
Open webOS beta release
The Open
webOS August edition, otherwise known as the beta release, is now
available. "Today’s release provides—not one—but two build
environments. Our desktop build provides the ideal development environment
for enhancing the webOS user experience with new features and integrating
state of the art open source technologies. Developers can now use all their
desktop tools on powerful development machines. Our OpenEmbedded build
provides the ideal development environment for porting webOS to new and
exciting devices."
(Log in to post comments)
Still under HP's full control Posted Sep 1, 2012 2:37 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
An item in the release notes looked interesting:
"Finally, you spoke, and we listened. We have enlisted feedback from the community and have selected an approach to contributions inspired by the popular Linux Certificate of Origin."
Wow. Does this mean they will go for Linux-style mixed ownership?
Following the link to:
The answer is: No.
"I hereby grant to the Project, Hewlett-Packard Company and recipients of software distributed by the Project a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to ..."
Relicensing would use other OSI-approved licenses Posted Sep 1, 2012 5:05 UTC (Sat) by speedster1 (subscriber, #8143) [Link]
"I understand that I retain copyright ownership in this contribution and I am granting the project a copyright license to use, modify and distribute my contribution. The project may relicense my contribution under other OSI-approved licenses."
"In some cases the project may need to relicense your contribution under other OSI-approved open source licenses in order to maintain the Apache-based licensing. For example, if your contribution is affected by GPL v2 code, the project may dual-license your code under both Apache 2.0 and GPL v2 or LGPLv2.1. This satisfies the GPL requirements, while still allowing other users to make use of the code under Apache."
This seems totally reasonable to me. Note that BSD-style licenses are *not* OSI approved. Having a relatively unbiased 3rd party organization determine acceptable license choices seems like a reasonable approach.
Relicensing would use other OSI-approved licenses Posted Sep 1, 2012 8:23 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
Let me explain you what's wrong IMHO:
#Include <ianal.h>
Suppose you wrote a nice little kernel driver, an extra feature to the Linux plumbing or whatever and you add a commit comment to your code:
Signed-off-by: First Last <email@example.org>
See http://www.elinux.org/Developer_Certificate_Of_Origin
This basically mean: "yes, I'm allowed to commit those changes to this repository".
WebOS / HP went on and slightly changed clause (d) in order to create its own variant. So if you happen to write:
Open-webOS-DCO-1.0-Signed-off-by: First Last <email@example.org>
you not only declare a certificate or origin, you also grant a specific commercial entity (HP. Not any WebOS non-profit) the right to do whatever it wanted with your code.
I hope this indicates stupidity.
Relicensing would use other OSI-approved licenses Posted Sep 1, 2012 9:48 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
>Note that BSD-style licenses are *not* OSI approved.
Oh seriously come on. http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
Relicensing would use other OSI-approved licenses Posted Sep 1, 2012 19:21 UTC (Sat) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]
Not to mention:
http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause and http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC (which I think of as BSD-descended).
|
|||||||||||||