Re: snapd contribution license

2016-06-14 Thread thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr 
> The ability to license
> something as non-open in the future doesn't change the fact that what
> is
> currently released is open.
Right, but it does make it not copyleft. So is that really what it's
doing or am I reading it wrong? Not that permissive is bad, I just want
to know. Because it seems like they are making everyone's contributions
essentially permissive open source. So if you wanted to contribute
copyleft code to snapd, you couldn't. Also, I still don't know if only 
Canonical has that right to relicense contributions.
> Please don't let yourself get pulled into FUD about the CLA. To date
> Canonical has only ever open sourced projects that had started out
> closed, never the opposite.
I understand that and personally I have a good opinion of Canonical. I
just don't see why they would want to license things this way if they
truly only had good intentions. It honestly seems like they just copy-
pasted a "template" of a license and didn't notice what they accidently
put in. The thing is I don't see why Canonical would need or want the
right to relicense things as proprietary.
On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 00:03 -0400, Michael Hall wrote:
> On 06/14/2016 11:42 PM, thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi guys, let's talk about snaps. There seems to be a problem with the
> > snapd contributor's license
> > agreement: 
> > https://assets.ubuntu.com/v1/ff2478d1-Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I_v1.2.pdf
> > 
> > 
> > "2.3 Outbound License
> > Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
> > include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
> > Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
> > permissive, commercial, or _*proprietar*y_ licenses. As a
> > condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
> > license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
> > licenses which We are using for the Material on the
> > Submission Date."
> > 
> > As you can see, it seems to allow Canonical to relicense any
> > contribution to snapd under a closed source license. In other words, it
> > doesn't seem to be copyleft at all, since Canonical can take it out of
> > the open source ecosystem at any time apparently.
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, the license isn't permissive either, since only
> > Canonical can relicense stuff. Thus is appears to be a nonfree license.
> > 
> > Am I reading this wrong? What is going on here?
> > 
> > 
> > 

> 
> 
> That is not a correct reading of the CLA. The ability to license
> something as non-open in the future doesn't change the fact that what is
> currently released is open. Technically if somebody is the sole
> copyright holder on a project they always have this ability, even if
> they released it under the GPL without a CLA. The open licenses in
> almost all cases are perpetual, which means you can't revoke the open
> license on existing code, only change it for future code. Nor are CLAs
> something uncommon for open source projects, the FSF uses them,
> OpenStack uses them, and many many more.
> 
> Please don't let yourself get pulled into FUD about the CLA. To date
> Canonical has only ever open sourced projects that had started out
> closed, never the opposite.
> 
> Michael Hall
> 
mhall...@ubuntu.com
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: resolvconf update script failure leads to forgotten device

2016-06-14 Thread corey kasten 
Tobias,

Thanks for getting this done. I'd like to try it out the changes, but my
system is Ubuntu 14.04. Will you be backporting the changes for it? If not,
will it be available for a later Ubuntu release?

Thanks!
Corey

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Tobias Brunner 
wrote:

> Hi Corey,
>
> FYI, I pushed a couple of commits ([1], [2]) that address this to master
> so they will be included in our next release.
>
> Regards,
> Tobias
>
> [1] https://git.strongswan.org/?p=strongswan.git;a=commitdiff;h=f4a20b74
> [2] https://git.strongswan.org/?p=strongswan.git;a=commitdiff;h=f1064ca5
>
>
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: snapd contribution license

2016-06-14 Thread Michael Hall 

On 06/14/2016 11:42 PM, thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr wrote:
> Hi guys, let's talk about snaps. There seems to be a problem with the
> snapd contributor's license
> agreement: 
> https://assets.ubuntu.com/v1/ff2478d1-Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I_v1.2.pdf
> 
> "2.3 Outbound License
> Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
> include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
> Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
> permissive, commercial, or _*proprietar*y_ licenses. As a
> condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
> license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
> licenses which We are using for the Material on the
> Submission Date."
> 
> As you can see, it seems to allow Canonical to relicense any
> contribution to snapd under a closed source license. In other words, it
> doesn't seem to be copyleft at all, since Canonical can take it out of
> the open source ecosystem at any time apparently.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the license isn't permissive either, since only
> Canonical can relicense stuff. Thus is appears to be a nonfree license.
> 
> Am I reading this wrong? What is going on here?
> 
> 

That is not a correct reading of the CLA. The ability to license
something as non-open in the future doesn't change the fact that what is
currently released is open. Technically if somebody is the sole
copyright holder on a project they always have this ability, even if
they released it under the GPL without a CLA. The open licenses in
almost all cases are perpetual, which means you can't revoke the open
license on existing code, only change it for future code. Nor are CLAs
something uncommon for open source projects, the FSF uses them,
OpenStack uses them, and many many more.

Please don't let yourself get pulled into FUD about the CLA. To date
Canonical has only ever open sourced projects that had started out
closed, never the opposite.

Michael Hall
mhall...@ubuntu.com

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

snapd contribution license

2016-06-14 Thread thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr 
Hi guys, let's talk about snaps. There seems to be a problem with the
snapd contributor's license agreement: https://assets.ubuntu.com/v1/ff2
478d1-Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I_v1.2.pdf

"2.3 Outbound License
Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a
condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
licenses which We are using for the Material on the
Submission Date."

As you can see, it seems to allow Canonical to relicense any
contribution to snapd under a closed source license. In other words, it
doesn't seem to be copyleft at all, since Canonical can take it out of
the open source ecosystem at any time apparently.


As far as I can tell, the license isn't permissive either, since only
Canonical can relicense stuff. Thus is appears to be a nonfree license.

Am I reading this wrong? What is going on here?
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Minitube is built without a Google API key, thus rendering the entire application useless

2016-06-14 Thread auspicious 
Minitube is a native YouTube application. It has been broken in 14.04 
due to Google deprecating an older API, and now it is broken in 16.04 
due to whoever built the package not having filled in a Google API key.


This application has no function without an API key, as it will not work 
at all. I would either suggest the removal of the application in the 
repositories, or a rebuild with a Google API key filled in, for it to be 
then pushed through as a mandatory update.


--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss