| T4 | <m_aurel> It's not mandatory for sure. Anyone can participate and keep his contribution under strict copyright. I just think, that the result, that get a price should be available for the community under a liberal license. It could also be a liberal CC or the good old Apache 2.0 license. | 07:47 |
|---|---|---|
| T4 | <Chipiguay> Have you consider the good and free GPL? | 07:52 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> GPL prohibits any kind of commercial use. | 07:54 |
| r0kk3rz | no it doesnt | 07:56 |
| T4 | <abranson> I don't think it does. gpl3 gives the user certain rights that are tough in embedded, but lots of commercial products use gpl software. | 07:56 |
| T4 | <DibyaXP> But he means that you are forced to share your modification | 07:56 |
| T4 | <abranson> that's not commercial use, that's making free software proprietary | 07:57 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Yes, a company can't use GPL software inside of a commercial products. Even linking a library under LGPL is a legal risk. Therefore the most Open Source libraries beyond the operation system level have other licenses. Docker, Elastic Search, .... | 08:03 |
| r0kk3rz | they can though :P | 08:03 |
| r0kk3rz | but yes, if you want to make products, you need to understand the license properly | 08:04 |
| r0kk3rz | so i highly recommend finding yourself some legal advice about this | 08:04 |
| r0kk3rz | if you want to make proprietary software, you should be careful. but i thought you wanted to make open source software | 08:05 |
| T4 | <Chipiguay> Android phones are commercial products sold at a price and Linux kernel is GPL v2 | 08:05 |
| T4 | <abranson> i'm wondering why making non-public modifications to open source software is critical for selling a commercial product. | 08:07 |
| T4 | <abranson> you just put your modified code on a website, or offer to send it to anyone who writes to you | 08:08 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Yes, but you can't make modifications without publishing the code. On the kernel level this is ok. However the investment in Fuchsia is motivated by this legal issues. | 08:09 |
| r0kk3rz | yes, thats open source :P | 08:09 |
| T4 | <abranson> fuchsia exists mostly because google doesn't control linux | 08:10 |
| r0kk3rz | if you want to make closed source things, most people in here wont help you :) | 08:10 |
| T4 | <abranson> still not clear why you can't publish your modifications. otherwise you're asking people to donate their work for free for your profit, and that's not what open source is for. | 08:11 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> yep, closed source is the main reason why I'm done with Sailfish | 08:11 |
| T4 | <neochapay> @akaWolf [yep, closed source is the main reason why I'm …], and nemo haha | 08:11 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> Nemo is on top of Mer, I don't want to support Jolla in any way | 08:12 |
| r0kk3rz | then why are you still here? | 08:13 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> why not | 08:13 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Open Source is not only GPL. The liberal licenses like Apache, MIT, BSD and some others are essential for the software industry and motivates corporate community members to contribute to open source. Think of docker, elastic search, cassandra. It's an endless list. Allmost all great products of startups wouldn't be possible without this k | 08:15 |
| T4 | ind of open source. | 08:15 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> they can exists and under gpl | 08:16 |
| r0kk3rz | pretty sure publishing the source code is like, the absolute base level for being 'open source' | 08:16 |
| r0kk3rz | if you dont want to do that, then its not open source | 08:17 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Sure, the issue is not publishing the source code of open source. The legal issue, that you are not allowed to embedd it in commercial products that are not published under the same license. | 08:19 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Liveral open source licenses allow that. | 08:19 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Sailfish is for community ports open source, namely Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. | 08:19 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Some parts are not published. We have to take into account, that Jolla has invested millions in maintaining Mer. And Megoo is even a result of multiplied invest of Neokia. | 08:21 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Someone needs to earn the money and pay the developers. | 08:21 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Our plan is to publish each line of code to be transparent. But some parts are published under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported to ensure our business case. | 08:22 |
| T4 | <abranson> You have to watch the interfaces between closed and open source. That's why Nemo and AOSP exist. If you want open source developers to contribute to what you're doing, then you have to allow them to use what they've done without your closed bits. | 08:23 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> We are willing to invest in a GPL open source base system. Some upper level parts needs another license. | 08:24 |
| T4 | <abranson> So while you can license your in-house code however you like, if you want to bring people together in a hackathon, then that stuff could be gpl. | 08:24 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Ideed. MIT, BST, Apache … alls that licenses would match this interests. | 08:24 |
| T4 | <abranson> but if you're avoiding gpl on such a public event for the reason that you might not want to publish your modifications, then that won't be popular. | 08:27 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> If we publish open source under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, it won't the code of any community member without to be payed for that. But it likely contain or reference open source components, that are already published under a liberal license. | 08:27 |
| T4 | <NotKit> what is the license to most of Nemo components? If it is GPL, you can't do modifications to existing components under more liberal license anyway | 08:33 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> @abranson The reason is, that every code under GPL can't be used for a commercial product, that is not for free for everyone. I think Apache, MIT, BSD and others are very popular. However we won't force any one to share or publish his or her code. It's just a prerequisite to get a price. It's fair, I think. | 08:34 |
| T4 | <NotKit> but there can be proprietary apps of course and so on, which is likely outside the scope of hackaton | 08:34 |
| T4 | <abranson> "every code under GPL can't be used for a commercial product, that is not for free for everyone" <- this is not true | 08:35 |
| T4 | <NotKit> and look at Purism, for example | 08:35 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> @NotKit Yes, It's ok for the base operation system layer. And we are fully commited to this approach and would like to invest and contribute to this base layer. Some upper layers or extensions sneeds another license, if a company makes an investment for a commercial product. | 08:37 |
| r0kk3rz | so you want to be jolla | 08:39 |
| r0kk3rz | ok | 08:39 |
| r0kk3rz | jolla and volla | 08:40 |
| T4 | <neochapay> haha | 08:40 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> @abranson Unfortunately it is. You are not alloewd to sell a product, that includes GPL components and is not published under GPL. Even LGPL is a risk. | 08:40 |
| r0kk3rz | get your facts straight, because they're all wonky | 08:40 |
| r0kk3rz | either that or you're just using the wrong words, idk | 08:41 |
| T4 | <abranson> you must publish the sources of all your gpl components, not everything. otherwise every mobile phone operating system violates that. | 08:41 |
| r0kk3rz | you say commercial, when you mean proprietary | 08:41 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> yep, that's why Android make own user-space drivers | 08:42 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> to keep them closed | 08:42 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> like «it's a separate component» | 08:43 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Jolla made a great job and has invested in free open source. However we think about a different approach: Publishing all code, some under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 to protect our business case. We also would like to contribute to any FOSS stack on the operation level. | 08:44 |
| r0kk3rz | thats not very different | 08:45 |
| r0kk3rz | most of jollas proprietary code is available | 08:45 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> not sure still how that protect your business :) | 08:45 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> against what? | 08:46 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> We would prefer a FOSS, that can be build and deployed for free by everyone for personal _and_ commercial use. This is not possible with Sailfish OS. | 08:48 |
| r0kk3rz | so use a proper code license | 08:50 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Futher more we want to motivate a consortium of companies, that would invest in this kind of FOSS. Each of them can have own extensions, modified system UI or what ever on top to make a business case possible. | 08:50 |
| r0kk3rz | MIT/BSD if you want it to be totally free | 08:51 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> GPL for the core system is ok. | 08:52 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> We don't want to touch it. | 08:52 |
| r0kk3rz | you're mistaken | 08:53 |
| r0kk3rz | and i'll leave it at that | 08:53 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Let me resume. We are fully communited to open source in general for full transpareny. We accept GPL for a FOSS operating system and are willing to contribute. We think, that CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 is a way to ensure transparency and a business case for additions on top of the operating system. Liberal licenses are essential to implement new pro | 09:14 |
| T4 | ducts on that level as an SME with limited finacnial sources. | 09:14 |
| T4 | <DibyaXP> @akaWolf … Haha vola doesn't want to be Jolla. … GPL is big risk if you stay in European union | 09:37 |
| T4 | <DibyaXP> That my lawyer say don't ask me | 09:38 |
| T4 | <DibyaXP> To be honest ,GPL 3 is like Chinese government … If you use GPL3 library to build any proprietary software or even a open-source software with different licence , you have to make it GPL3 else Don't forget to pay your lawyer and pay the court . … It is what he said me . | 09:41 |
| T4 | <abranson> The tivoisation clause of Gplv3 is tough to use for embedded devices, but then it was designed to be. | 09:45 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> The branding is indeed a funny coincidence. You are right, it's a legal risk. In my other investment, we have already evaluated the legal aspects of open source with specialised lawyers. The outcome is, that the developers are adviced not to use GPL libraries. The licenses have even become a standard quality checkpoint in the reslease pro | 09:46 |
| T4 | cess. This is also checked by our enterprise customers. It's the main business model of Red Hat to liocense Enterprise Linux to take the legal risks. | 09:46 |
| T4 | <NotKit> and in practice you can't even get some phone vendors to release GPLv2 kernel sources which they are obliged to... | 09:47 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> I think also one motivation for Fuchsia is the license issue. | 09:48 |
| r0kk3rz | the goog wants control | 09:48 |
| T4 | <abranson> i don't think the gpl of the kernel hampers android. all their closed stuff is much higher up. | 09:49 |
| r0kk3rz | the chip makees want to keep their drivers proprietary | 09:49 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> I agree, the Chip vendors are pushing this. | 09:51 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> A long term goal should be a FOSS mobile hardware plattform with transparent drivers. | 09:51 |
| r0kk3rz | doubt. they wont want to retrain developers on a completely different kernel | 09:52 |
| T4 | <m_aurel> Without an easy migration or emulation, Fuchsia won't succeed. But I think there will be a technical solution. Google has endless ressources for research. | 09:53 |
| T4 | <abranson> there's no telling if they'll go for the alliance approach for the first fuchsia devices. they might want to make the first ones like apple, with full control of device production under the Google name. then they'll have their own people doing the drivers. | 09:56 |
| T4 | <meierrom> @m_aurel [Yes, a company can't use GPL software inside o …], This is such a weird statement. Are you trying to say that Sailfish X is not a commercial product? Do you know how much GPL is inside Sailfish X? Maybe you should consider getting new lawyers :) | 10:49 |
| T4 | <meierrom> @m_aurel [@abranson Unfortunately it is. You are not all …], I rarely read so much bullshit in a single thread. Amazing! :) | 11:07 |
| T4 | <locusf> well don't say I didn't warn you :) | 11:08 |
| T4 | <DibyaXP> @m_aurel [@abranson Unfortunately it is. You are not all …], Man you are confused actually , GPL and GPL 2 are fine if you are realising your modified code but GPL 3 is something to stay away | 11:09 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> GPL3 is explicitly prohibit tivoization | 11:10 |
| T4 | <akaWolf> while GPL2 also does that, but implicitly | 11:11 |
| T4 | <DibyaXP> I am confused . I will leave my job as programmer and go to a village to be a farmer | 11:11 |
| bencoh | That's most probably the best course of action! :) | 11:36 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.1 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!