**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sun Apr 17 02:59:58 2011 Apr 17 04:45:35 any nokians awake? Apr 17 07:12:25 * lcuk does a somersault back into the channel Apr 17 07:14:00 morn lcuk Apr 17 07:14:18 hey Stskeeps \o how is Tampere? Apr 17 07:14:32 it was good, now in hel(l) Apr 17 07:14:53 * lcuk just got back from holiday Apr 17 07:15:09 we all assumed you were dead :P Apr 17 07:15:31 yeah, the pile of emails and twitter messages told me as much Apr 17 07:15:54 just taking vacation early because of Tracy bump Apr 17 07:16:03 huh. lcuk is alive? Apr 17 07:16:24 * lcuk is now advanced AI Apr 17 07:16:24 back from the dead. get him, he's a zombie! Apr 17 07:16:42 :D Apr 17 07:17:41 I saw some bits of the talks yesterday Apr 17 07:18:00 but is there a central place for the writeups? Apr 17 07:18:01 lcuk: there will be hopefully better recordings *sigh* Apr 17 07:18:15 at some point our streaming totally crapped out Apr 17 07:18:28 dm8tbr, it happens Apr 17 07:18:33 keeps you busy! Apr 17 07:18:36 yeh Apr 17 07:18:57 I've got prolly 150G worth of DV footage from one cam only Apr 17 07:19:07 720p IIRC Apr 17 07:19:09 Myrtti has also got some recordings Apr 17 07:19:32 yeah, they were also shooting with n8s etc Apr 17 07:19:38 and we have stream-dumps Apr 17 07:20:19 good! Apr 17 07:20:59 it would be interesting to get the collaborative editing apps up and running and pool all the media Apr 17 07:21:02 hi Venemo \o Apr 17 07:21:49 morning mmeeks \o Apr 17 07:21:54 hey lcuk! :) Apr 17 07:22:00 lcuk, long time no see :P Apr 17 07:22:19 not that long, only a holiday. Apr 17 07:35:54 Venemo, http://twitter.com/lcuk/status/59182570713255936 Apr 17 07:36:27 nice :) Apr 17 08:00:33 timoph, were there any hiccups with the meego-fi development usc stick or did it happily boot meego and let people concentrate on making apps? Apr 17 08:03:37 ah. it wasn't that kind of stick. We just collected different meego images, etc. into it. Haven't tried the stick from appup lab yet Apr 17 08:04:42 timoph, ooh so you have a multiboot usb stick somewhere? Apr 17 08:04:49 it didn't work for me Apr 17 08:05:00 morning Myrtti \o Apr 17 08:05:17 moin :-) Apr 17 08:07:49 Hello Any one knows which image i can flash to exopc tablet Apr 17 08:08:09 http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/builds/1.1.90/1.1.99.2.20110412.6/images/ Apr 17 08:08:28 pinetrail Apr 17 08:11:11 srikanth_RST, there is a nice documentation page also leading you to image http://meego.com/downloads/releases/1.2/meego-tablet-developer-preview cc jukkaeklund, thanks \o Apr 17 08:11:52 lcuk: no. nothing that fancy. just plain old files :) Apr 17 08:12:03 * dm8tbr wonders if it will fail in colourful ways if I change the repos and zyp up Apr 17 08:12:12 srikanth_RST, yeah I'm just getting that Apr 17 08:15:57 * timoph goes out to vote and buy somekind of stand and a kb for exopc hacking Apr 17 08:17:09 lcuk: jukkaeklund: thanks. I will try now Apr 17 08:19:02 is there some official stand, seems to be some connector at the bottom Apr 17 08:19:17 mihero, I think so Apr 17 08:19:33 Myrtti:Thanks Apr 17 08:23:32 hmm, seems that same stands work for wetab and some other tablets Apr 17 08:24:01 so as I was saying, you don't need a keyboard to flash the ExoPC Apr 17 08:24:15 the boot selection can be done with the hotspot on the left top corner Apr 17 08:24:39 tap once to move the selection to "install only" and hold down (for a long time) to select Apr 17 08:25:52 is that swype thing only in the preinstalled image or also in the newer ones? Apr 17 08:26:32 it's not in the daily builds Apr 17 08:26:42 if you go to the intel site and download an image from there, it's there Apr 17 08:26:52 ah, ok Apr 17 08:27:04 just curious, not that I really care thaaat much Apr 17 08:27:29 Myrtti, the hotspot in the corner, is that just light sensor? Apr 17 08:27:34 no Apr 17 08:27:40 it's actually a button of sorts Apr 17 08:27:44 I suppose Apr 17 08:28:11 I don't know the technique used, so I suppose it could be a light sensor Apr 17 08:28:18 proximity sensor, maybe Apr 17 08:28:24 would suck in the dark ;) Apr 17 08:28:35 but it is a valid button and it can be used to interact in the tablet ui too Apr 17 08:28:40 Stskeeps, yes that is the technical description I was thinking of Apr 17 08:28:58 its quite nice solution Apr 17 08:29:09 I found it by accident Apr 17 08:29:12 quite nifty Apr 17 08:29:17 if its polling though wondering about power consumption Apr 17 08:29:33 we should try to use that in N900 also, unless its draining battery Apr 17 08:30:00 if a proximity sensor doesn't poll, it's quite useless ;-) Apr 17 08:30:11 (in the sense I understand polling) Apr 17 08:31:43 jukkaeklund, I have seen apps using proximity on n900 Apr 17 08:31:53 in meego? Apr 17 08:32:54 * jukkaeklund wondering then tablet test reports are coming to http://qa-reports.meego.com/ Apr 17 08:33:14 good question Apr 17 08:33:37 and next question :) Apr 17 08:33:45 I was just going to file bug reports Apr 17 08:33:53 the facebook connection thingie is broken for me Apr 17 08:34:12 so badly it recovers only with a reboot :-x Apr 17 08:34:18 think there was a problem with api keys or somethingg Apr 17 08:34:23 at some point Apr 17 08:34:33 my only problem is that I can't tap the "Done" button Apr 17 08:34:47 and because of that the configuration dialog is stuck Apr 17 08:35:22 and because the same thingamabob is used to configure everything else, I can't configure for example wifi or panels or anything else once I've tried connecting facebook Apr 17 08:35:25 yes, please write them bugs now :) Apr 17 08:36:38 looks like installation is stuck for me Apr 17 08:37:25 (and it seems that I did actually, really really flash the daily build) Apr 17 08:37:35 atleast the image is dated yesterday instead of 12th Apr 17 08:39:44 ooh, bleading edge Apr 17 08:40:07 jukkaeklund: how's the latest tablet image doing? Apr 17 08:40:25 wondering whether to go for that or try out the netbook img Apr 17 08:40:59 sandst1, installation got stuck for me so don Apr 17 08:41:02 't know Apr 17 08:41:09 ok Apr 17 08:41:13 or handset :) Apr 17 08:41:37 yea :) Apr 17 08:42:27 DE could prolly run on there without big issue Apr 17 08:43:11 yep, that came to mind Apr 17 08:43:24 want to make make a image? :) Apr 17 08:44:04 not using my n900 ;) maybe tomorrow Apr 17 08:44:46 was sitting and hacking until 4am last night, was good to get that out of my system.. :P Apr 17 08:46:44 Stskeeps, good what did you hack? Apr 17 08:47:40 compiling qt lighthouse and playing with some ideas Apr 17 08:48:55 oh Apr 17 08:49:38 * sandst1 just booted the netbook img. working except the mouse cursor seems to be attached to the accelerometer :D Apr 17 08:50:08 ! Apr 17 08:51:24 sandst1: ah, yeah, xorg did that on n900 at some point Apr 17 08:51:28 that was fun Apr 17 08:51:40 yeap :) Apr 17 08:52:06 also the vkb is disabled. i wonder if there's a touch-customized version available Apr 17 08:52:55 that would be swype but its only in Intels images Apr 17 08:53:23 got the installation through now, it seems choosing Finnish was not a good idea Apr 17 08:54:29 jukkaeklund: thanks for the tip Apr 17 08:55:10 language, locale and vkb should be detached from each other, yeah Apr 17 08:55:23 I'd want UK British language, Finnish locale and vkb Apr 17 08:56:07 yep. that's how I'd like to set it up Apr 17 08:59:16 go fix it then :) Apr 17 08:59:26 :) Apr 17 09:00:10 just arriving at verkkokauppa to buy some hacking equipment :) Apr 17 09:00:38 mouse and keyboard? Apr 17 09:00:48 timoph, they sell awesome helicopters! Apr 17 09:01:04 * lcuk still has little one here Apr 17 09:01:13 * lcuk will trade upto a bigger one at some point. Apr 17 09:01:26 some small kb and somekind of stand Apr 17 09:02:08 the note in the package said "includes a stand" Apr 17 09:02:09 btw Apr 17 09:02:17 yep Apr 17 09:02:19 (it didn't) Apr 17 09:02:23 I made a stand for n810 and n900 :) Apr 17 09:02:40 double checked the packaging for it Apr 17 09:02:51 I'll probably make something out of sugru Apr 17 09:03:11 since I don't have shrinktube or anything Apr 17 09:03:31 maybe the box itself is a stand Apr 17 09:03:40 * lcuk likes the ideapad Apr 17 09:03:44 it is self standing Apr 17 09:03:56 and pre includes a keyboard ! Apr 17 09:04:49 you're just jealous Apr 17 09:05:34 this seems to be the very latest image: http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/builds/trunk/latest/images/meego-tablet-ia32-pinetrail/meego-tablet-ia32-pinetrail-1.1.99.2.20110412.6.img Apr 17 09:05:52 sandst1: it's not ;-) there's daily builds too :-P Apr 17 09:06:00 (but I suspect they're not as stable) Apr 17 09:06:20 trunk should be stable Apr 17 09:06:40 so http://download.meego.com/trunk-daily/builds/trunk/1.1.99.3.20110415.3/images/meego-tablet-ia32-pinetrail/ Apr 17 09:06:56 it also claims the device is passively cooled Apr 17 09:07:02 heh Apr 17 09:07:04 err, scroll fail Apr 17 09:07:23 tablet that has a cooling fan Apr 17 09:07:52 oops pressing power to "standby" is not a good idea Apr 17 09:07:55 ah, thanks Apr 17 09:09:11 aw man Apr 17 09:09:17 http://kevindark.co.uk/Images/ExoStuff/TheDock.jpg the dock would be nice Apr 17 09:09:31 anybody tried to update on the fly with zypper? Apr 17 09:09:40 (and how to do that?) Apr 17 09:10:18 jukkaeklund: zypper ref && zypper up. worked at least on the netbook Apr 17 09:11:02 bit hard without vkb or keyboard though :| Apr 17 09:11:17 the IP is shown in the connectivity settings & there's an ssh daemon running Apr 17 09:11:39 ah of course Apr 17 09:12:17 oooh there is ssh? nice Apr 17 09:12:33 * dm8tbr wanted to install thinking there isn't and that failed because the repo is gone Apr 17 09:12:50 jukkaeklund: I thought of that too. didn't get around to trying yet Apr 17 09:13:05 hmm, doesn't want to connect with ssh though Apr 17 09:14:12 you have failed, young padawan Apr 17 09:14:21 yes I have Apr 17 09:14:27 works for me Apr 17 09:14:31 and thanks for the young part Apr 17 09:15:02 prkl, if I have to start fiddling with WLAN setup for that Apr 17 09:15:21 does it do over USB? Apr 17 09:16:31 All repositories have been refreshed. Apr 17 09:16:37 Nothing to do. Apr 17 09:16:42 :-| Apr 17 09:17:10 Myrtti: so you're already using the latest image?:) Apr 17 09:17:45 yup Apr 17 09:17:55 flashed it last night Apr 17 09:18:07 ok. so there really is nothing to update Apr 17 09:25:46 did anyone get the alarm working? I can't set the time Apr 17 09:29:06 exopc stand, http://kevindark.co.uk/Products/Stands_For_EXOPC_VIBE.aspx Apr 17 09:30:06 dm8tbr, I think that was mentioned in the gotchas list Apr 17 09:30:19 the 2-sheet thingy in the plastic bag with the stick Apr 17 09:30:36 yeah, glanced over the list but didn't memorize that item Apr 17 09:30:55 right bottom of the list there it is Apr 17 09:35:12 I almost want to get the docking station Apr 17 09:35:59 heh, 393 packages to update, I wonder if it'll take off under the power of the fan Apr 17 09:53:01 the appup client is somewhat horrible :-D Apr 17 09:54:03 I can see why it's not public yet :-D Apr 17 09:57:06 has to be public if you got it, where is that? Apr 17 09:59:43 http://appdeveloper.intel.com/en-us/meego-sdk-suite Apr 17 09:59:54 well it is public but in beta Apr 17 10:00:01 oh, not even that Apr 17 10:00:02 alpha Apr 17 10:00:04 does anybody know whether there are any git statistics tools, to indicate contribution breakdown on a repository? Apr 17 10:01:39 define contribution breakdown? Apr 17 10:03:06 poutsi, at most basic level, lines of code per person Apr 17 10:03:15 but it is not quite so simple with binary elements Apr 17 10:04:29 (the gitstats website is not working) Apr 17 10:06:13 yeah, just ran into that snag myself Apr 17 10:06:21 there are a few others mentioned here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1828874/generating-statistics-from-git-repository Apr 17 10:07:10 Myrtti, thanks its dated to middle of Feb so will not bother.. Apr 17 10:07:35 poutsi, thanks was on there myself too Apr 17 10:09:27 DawnFoster: ping Apr 17 10:11:20 \o lbt Apr 17 10:11:49 hey lcuk ... glad you're back in the real world Apr 17 10:12:49 hah, this is the real world: http://twitter.com/lcuk/status/59182570713255936 but I am somewhat pleased to have internet back now :) Apr 17 10:13:45 *g* Apr 17 10:14:46 * lcuk has not done somersaults for half a lifetime! Apr 17 10:14:54 I had forgotten how to do them at first Apr 17 10:15:10 * lbt smells a tutorial for SF2011 Apr 17 10:15:33 haha! Apr 17 10:16:05 * jukkaeklund wonders what kind of person forgets his WLAN box password Apr 17 10:16:08 last time I stood up infront of people and tried to show them what was needed I got laughed at in school Apr 17 10:17:11 jukkaeklund, try 12345 Apr 17 10:17:37 nope Apr 17 10:17:53 note to self: change combination on luggage Apr 17 10:18:21 :) Apr 17 10:18:24 :D Apr 17 10:23:04 lcuk: where did your internet go? Apr 17 10:23:19 alterego, see the photo Apr 17 10:23:27 no internet on holiday :) Apr 17 10:23:35 spending time with family Apr 17 10:23:48 we even managed to get luke to put his phone down for a couple of days Apr 17 10:23:53 eh, zypper's a bit too quiet for my tastes Apr 17 10:24:07 thought my upgrade hung when in fact it was just rebuilding locales Apr 17 10:28:33 lcuk: yeah, I knew you were on Holida, I was trying to tell everyone that you'd gone on holiday because a few people were getting worried :P Apr 17 10:29:33 yeah I heard, the pile of emails and messages when I got back to civilisation helped clarify though lol Apr 17 10:30:10 Hahah Apr 17 10:33:15 alterego, had more email whilst I was gone for a break than proceeding few months! Apr 17 10:33:27 * lcuk still has not caught up with everything Apr 17 10:38:39 Well, sounds like you've been having a good time though :) Apr 17 10:43:57 alterego, straining many different muscles :) Apr 17 10:45:32 Morning, all Apr 17 10:45:46 morning Jaffa \o Apr 17 10:46:13 Anything interesting come out of #meegofi or anything else this week for MWKN? Apr 17 10:46:28 Light on contributions so far, but maybe it's a quiet week... Apr 17 10:47:53 Jaffa, once you publish todays edition later, ping me I need to catch up and mwkn is generally designed for such a task \o Apr 17 10:48:18 mmmmmm tea Apr 17 10:48:43 Jaffa, not exactly news, but n900 on a beach takes wonderful photos! :P Apr 17 10:48:51 lcuk: Currently it's got two stories in and so not much catch-up capability will be provided :-/ Apr 17 10:48:52 and the sand does come out of the slider eventually Apr 17 10:48:59 lcuk: heh Apr 17 10:49:19 My camera takes horrid photos now cos of all the gunk caught around the lens Apr 17 10:49:24 Jaffa: apart from Reuters telling that LG will publish a mobile phone and LG later correcting them? Apr 17 10:49:35 Jaffa, ? what gunk Apr 17 10:50:33 Myrtti: LG sayigng they're *not* releasing a [MeeGo] phone? Apr 17 10:50:48 lcuk: Pocket detritus, e.g. tissue dust. Apr 17 10:50:57 Jaffa, the N900 camera does take excellent shots http://twitter.com/lcuk/status/59182570713255936 Apr 17 10:51:12 lcuk: Indeed Apr 17 10:51:13 ahhh that pic was taken from tracys n900 Apr 17 10:51:23 that gets thrown into her purse Apr 17 10:51:34 I worry everytime, but the screen protector is doing its job Apr 17 10:51:48 Jaffa: http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/15/lg-steps-in-to-develop-handset-version-of-meego-sorry-nokia/ Apr 17 10:52:03 lcuk: Cool Apr 17 10:52:13 Myrtti: ta Apr 17 10:53:06 (source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/15/us-mobile-software-meego-idUSTRE73E2CT20110415) Apr 17 10:53:52 the original content of the article was a bit different Apr 17 10:54:26 I did read it a bit confused and wondered where exactly did Valtteri say LG were going to publish a phone Apr 17 10:54:53 Engadget in inaccuracy shock ) Apr 17 10:55:05 Thanks for the link, though Apr 17 10:55:06 I'd say Reuters editors Apr 17 10:55:26 Reuters did the mistake, and it spread like a wild fire Apr 17 10:56:10 Myrtti: Ah, fair enough Apr 17 10:59:58 Err, is news.meego.com and planet.meego.com supposed to actually, y'know, work? Apr 17 11:00:16 The links on khyber's two posts are just loopback links Apr 17 11:09:17 Jaffa, this reminds me of the funny situation after Nokia's annoucement. then, mxr.meego.com pointed to microsoft.com for about a week. Apr 17 11:09:55 cos of some idiot showing that volunteer hosting cant be trusted. Apr 17 11:11:11 Venemo: Annoying Apr 17 11:13:28 aw, ran out of cheese Apr 17 11:15:51 * lbt quietly notes that the Intel SDK T-shirts say www.meego.org .... Apr 17 11:17:42 lbt: that we should note to dawn.. Apr 17 11:19:28 yep... Apr 17 11:20:00 shows that they're thinking correctly about meego :) Apr 17 11:20:32 did you catch the train? Apr 17 11:21:55 I'm getting more and more annoyed that the ux doesn't offer any sensible way to close apps. "freeing screen space" is a poor excuse for this design flaw. Apr 17 11:22:48 timoph: that question has been my mind.. how do you close the apps? :) Apr 17 11:23:10 for now i have rebooted the device when i wanted switch to another app Apr 17 11:23:15 open task switcher, press and hold, select close :) Apr 17 11:23:35 or kill them from xterm :p Apr 17 11:23:54 did the task switcher come from the corner hotspot? Apr 17 11:23:57 how task switcher is opened? :) Apr 17 11:24:12 yep. the corner hotspot Apr 17 11:24:34 aha.. Apr 17 11:25:24 or if you're using kb: context menu key or holding down the corporate key Apr 17 11:26:11 * lcuk likes the descriptive key name Apr 17 11:27:04 hmm maybe i'll put handset ux pinetrail version for now :) Apr 17 11:27:54 * Jaffa suspects lack of close icons is an increasing UI paradigm for mobile, and so, MeeGo Apr 17 11:28:22 ololololo video ♥ Apr 17 11:28:25 yep Apr 17 11:28:45 no problem there if there's a smart task killer and apps are designed accordingly Apr 17 11:28:56 Pasila from YLE areena on the exopc ♥ Apr 17 11:29:12 no need for a laptop in bed anymore Apr 17 11:29:24 poutsi: You mean apps auto-close? Apr 17 11:29:24 in short terms it is no problem how apps are closed if it is immediately intuitive to the user :) Apr 17 11:29:32 whaddya know, it booted even after the upgrade stopped halfway Apr 17 11:29:35 Jaffa, yeah Apr 17 11:30:02 "no close button" has been around (and universally disliked) since windows mobile Apr 17 11:30:02 jarkko^_, I'd say it's no problem if there's no incentive in closing apps yourself Apr 17 11:30:10 ali12341, not universally :) Apr 17 11:30:10 poutsi: None of the official MeeGo APIs or guides describe how to build such apps, and Maemo experience suggests most apps won't be designed accordingly if there's more than one way to do it. Apr 17 11:30:33 Jaffa, and that's a huge issue, yeah Apr 17 11:31:09 poutsi: Perhaps iOS' limited multitasking and guided "multitasking" is a better way of approaching it. Certainly none of the "core" Linux libraries and devices have made it easy. Apr 17 11:31:10 poutsi: yeah if there's some clear way to get back to apps menu :) Apr 17 11:31:25 i couldn't figure even that out Apr 17 11:31:39 so when i started app i was stuck with it until i rebooted :) Apr 17 11:31:47 And doing "update when not visible" seems harder in Qt (and should be done for free with QML) than it was in a lower-level Hildon/Gtk app. Apr 17 11:31:59 wasn't very fun user experience Apr 17 11:32:58 argh, why doesn't resolv.conf get updated correctly Apr 17 11:33:25 has anyone already tried handset ux with exopc Apr 17 11:33:59 jarkko^_, should be same as on the ideapad, afaik it is the same pinetrail image Apr 17 11:34:37 yeah, exopc is also pinetrail Apr 17 11:34:41 should work Apr 17 11:34:55 I'm feeling slightly stupid, but where exactly can I get more applications to the tablet? AppUp clearly isn't a solution at the moment Apr 17 11:34:56 All moo. Apr 17 11:35:22 myrtti: garage.maemo.org? =) Apr 17 11:35:33 really? Apr 17 11:35:49 Well behaved Qt apps should recompile and work, shouldn't they? Apr 17 11:38:42 myrtti: http://apps-beta.meego.com/basecategories/meego/current/netbook/ Apr 17 11:38:56 should run in the tablet fine Apr 17 11:41:20 you'll need access to the community OBS (build.pub.meego.com). send your meego.com username to lbt or X-Fade and they'll enable it Apr 17 11:42:59 the website is so abysmally bad I think I'll just roll over and die slowly Apr 17 11:43:19 myrtti: which ? Apr 17 11:43:29 apps-beta Apr 17 11:43:33 "string(60) "/applications/{$os}/{$string:version}/{$ux}/{$basecategory}/" Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in /var/cas_latest/midgardmvc_core/route.php on line 221" Apr 17 11:43:40 "thanks a lot" Apr 17 11:43:46 ah, they're probably working on it Apr 17 11:43:59 I should hope so... :-) Apr 17 11:44:07 it's the 'live dev' Apr 17 11:45:41 can't even download anything Apr 17 11:45:49 so I'll just have another cuppa and watch telly Apr 17 11:46:12 zypper upgrade almost finished Apr 17 11:46:20 catch X-Fade and he'll rope you in as a beta tester Apr 17 11:46:49 almost squirted coffee out my nose when I saw a package name starting with "prolog" Apr 17 11:47:16 probably not prolog the PL though Apr 17 11:47:22 well, as there is no official usable version of Meego for tablets, expecting to have apps for it is kinda too optimistic Apr 17 11:47:37 no wait I was thinking of cobol :p Apr 17 11:47:45 silly Apr 17 11:53:26 RST38h: to be honest, I had no expectations at all. I just literally couldn't find any place to get any apps for any platform from the top of my head Apr 17 11:57:14 I suppose I should've stayed out of the AppUp lab altogether and allow someone who can actually develop those apps to have the device Apr 17 11:57:27 hallo hat das nokia n900 omap 3 oder omap 4 Apr 17 11:57:43 hi, the nokia n900 omap 3 or 4 omap Apr 17 11:57:51 poutsi: actually the resource policy framework's rules Are written in Prolog :) Apr 17 11:57:52 OMAP 3 Apr 17 11:57:59 Could you not google that? Apr 17 11:58:17 thx Apr 17 11:58:32 i have gegoogelt Apr 17 11:59:08 alterego, pfft do you know how much harder it is to google something than to join an irc server and ask it in an irrelevant channel? Apr 17 11:59:15 poutsi: https://meego.gitorious.org/maemo-multimedia/prolog Apr 17 11:59:20 poutsi: http://conference2010.meego.com/session/policy-framework-flexible-way-orchestrate-multiple-functionalities-meego-devices Apr 17 11:59:26 /say /sarcasm Apr 17 11:59:29 darn it Apr 17 11:59:42 everyone gets the drift anyway Apr 17 12:00:44 Myrtti: you can always make it dualboot to win7 if you want to have some apps to run on :) Apr 17 12:01:35 jonni: if I'll go the dualboot way, I'll take something I know how to use - like ubuntu. Apr 17 12:02:40 ah nevermind I'm just getting depressed Apr 17 12:02:44 cheers, have a nice day Apr 17 12:06:52 Myrtti: there is always maemo! :) Apr 17 12:07:16 * Jaffa was thinking earlier today about vendors giving out devices. It's cool and funky to have a new toy, but if it doesn't do *anything* usefully or have a market ready and waiting for apps, will anyone develop for it. Nokia's free E7 was like this (it didn't do anything beyond my N900, so why'd I develop for it), the IdeaPads with MeeGo Netbook may be similar. Apr 17 12:07:20 Ok,not always, but for a while. Hopefully, Meego will reach the sameor better state by the year's end Apr 17 12:07:46 Jaffa: Well, I use E7 for development. Apr 17 12:07:48 Whereas I develop for the N900 cos it already meets a load of my use cases, so enriching it benefits me. Apr 17 12:08:08 It is kinda enriching too, in monetary sense. Apr 17 12:08:13 RST38h: Verifying the cross-platformness of my Qt apps, sure. Apr 17 12:08:23 Nah, not even using Qt Apr 17 12:08:29 Avkon here. Apr 17 12:08:30 RST38h: Indeed, so the "ready made market" is met there. Apr 17 12:08:38 RST38h: Masochist ;-) Apr 17 12:08:49 Realist: got shitload of code using it Apr 17 12:57:44 Jaffa: actually what happened at the summit was Intel worked some more on bootstrapping the MeeGo Apps story Apr 17 12:59:24 They do have some strong messages - and they are offering early app-developers initiatives (including $50k or flying a MiG) Apr 17 12:59:41 the SDK still needs a little work but it's supposed to be useful Apr 17 13:00:02 * Stskeeps was rather impressed with general appup story Apr 17 13:00:04 I'm going to see about installing it tonight Apr 17 13:00:08 yep .. me too Apr 17 13:00:17 very opensource friendly Apr 17 13:00:24 yep Apr 17 13:00:25 and less of a bullshit store Apr 17 13:00:28 license-wise, not surrounds ;) Apr 17 13:01:04 Bernie and I had a chat - they want to support component dependencies ... but it's hard Apr 17 13:01:50 they're going to *investigate* funding a community-OBS plugin to go from MeeGo:Apps -> AppUp Apr 17 13:02:01 nice Apr 17 13:02:02 you will be able to ask for $ for OSS apps Apr 17 13:02:53 (sounds like they may want to use OBS internally later to facilitate multi-targets for devs - so the plugin would come from there too) Apr 17 13:03:19 They have multi-lingual support (provided you count 0, 1, multi) Apr 17 13:03:20 so I could have the apps for free in cobs and ask money for the same apps through appup :P Apr 17 13:03:25 yes Apr 17 13:03:51 and if you get Dixons users, they pay a small fee, community users get it for nothing Apr 17 13:03:53 interesting Apr 17 13:03:56 yes Apr 17 13:04:36 We should focus on GPL being "open source", and "libre".... not free Apr 17 13:04:45 true Apr 17 13:04:47 (most dixons users prolly don't speak french ;) ) Apr 17 13:04:54 french devs lose out Apr 17 13:04:55 win win Apr 17 13:05:00 :D Apr 17 13:08:59 if you can put OSS apps in a appstore, what's to stop people constantly undercutting each other by $0.01? Apr 17 13:12:01 ali12341: trademark the name of your project, sue them into oblivion. *duck* *run* ouch! Apr 17 13:12:56 ali12341: excellent question - but I suggest the AppUp store should respect copyright Apr 17 13:13:44 so if the copyright holder asks the store to prevent a user from distributing via the AppUp store.. that's OK Apr 17 13:13:49 "debate" Apr 17 13:14:19 copyright holder... on GPL software? Apr 17 13:14:24 yes Apr 17 13:14:31 License != copyright Apr 17 13:14:32 if you said trademark i could agree with you Apr 17 13:14:38 not at all Apr 17 13:14:44 I hold the copyright on my app Apr 17 13:14:50 yeah Apr 17 13:14:55 I choose to distribute using GPL Apr 17 13:15:03 you may distribute it too Apr 17 13:15:06 you may sell it Apr 17 13:15:10 and if you impose extra conditions like "you can't put my app on appup" then you've just violated the GPL Apr 17 13:15:14 you may not oblige the AppUp store to sell it Apr 17 13:15:24 the condition is not on the distribution Apr 17 13:15:32 ah fair point Apr 17 13:15:35 it is a policy of the store Apr 17 13:15:48 designed to respect the copyright holders wishes Apr 17 13:16:04 I actually only just realised that Apr 17 13:16:11 what if the copyright holder isn't the first person to package the app for appup? Apr 17 13:16:20 but I think it's the answer to "how do I stop others selling shopper on appup" Apr 17 13:16:27 not a problem Apr 17 13:16:45 the policy is that if the holder objects, the holder is listened to Apr 17 13:16:54 if i put in the hard work to port your app to meego, then put it in appup, you can come along and say "i'm the copyright holder" and take my work and sell it yourself? Apr 17 13:16:57 don't try selling the kernel ;) Apr 17 13:17:02 yes Apr 17 13:17:13 well that's pretty lame Apr 17 13:17:17 so talk to me first if yo plan to monetise you greedy bastard ;) Apr 17 13:17:27 or I'll just get it all Apr 17 13:17:38 well i'd just say "hang on, i'm the copyright holder on the parts that make it work on meego" Apr 17 13:17:44 then we both lose Apr 17 13:17:45 feel free Apr 17 13:17:47 lose lose Apr 17 13:18:01 but personally i would prefer a system where anyone is free to undercut anyone else at any time Apr 17 13:18:01 ain't cooperation great ? Apr 17 13:18:08 ali12341: pointless Apr 17 13:18:20 seems like the reasonable thing would be to talk to the copyright holder first Apr 17 13:18:26 not pointless, in fact, it ensures that users get the best possible value Apr 17 13:18:28 berndhs: indeed Apr 17 13:18:34 value? Apr 17 13:18:41 yes value for money when purchasing apps Apr 17 13:18:43 again, not at all Apr 17 13:18:58 starving your pet poet means no more poems Apr 17 13:19:37 and where does the GPL mention value? Apr 17 13:20:00 it doesn't, this has nothing to do with the GPL Apr 17 13:20:08 it does Apr 17 13:20:16 although if you asked RMS about this he'd agree with me Apr 17 13:20:17 you only have rights to my SW via the GPLE Apr 17 13:20:25 ask - you're wrong Apr 17 13:20:36 he has frequently supported cash for code Apr 17 13:20:52 lbt: every time RMS does a lecture someone asks him this exact question and the answer is always the same Apr 17 13:20:55 however the user (from Dixons) should know they can recompile Apr 17 13:21:04 rofl Apr 17 13:21:04 "how do i stop someone else from selling my code?" Apr 17 13:21:15 I'm not stopping you Apr 17 13:21:24 you can go down to a market and sell it Apr 17 13:21:44 I'm suggesting the AppUp store has a model to encourage OSS monetisation Apr 17 13:21:51 technically you're not stopping me however you are basically entering into an agreement with appup to limit the effectiveness of the GPL to achieve it's goal Apr 17 13:21:56 yes Apr 17 13:22:05 so use the post office Apr 17 13:22:13 and post my app to your users Apr 17 13:22:20 and they can send you money Apr 17 13:22:27 and you have to manage that channel Apr 17 13:22:30 and pay the costs Apr 17 13:22:40 me and the appup store - we *have* an agreement Apr 17 13:22:43 well there's one small problem with that, which is, as we all know, meego devices will be "tivoized" such that you can only install apps from an approved source Apr 17 13:22:44 they get 30% Apr 17 13:22:54 yep Apr 17 13:22:58 he'll hate that Apr 17 13:23:35 which means that there will only be once source for a particular GPL app, and the developer can charge whatever they want for it - which is the exact situation the GPL is designed to *prevent* from occuring Apr 17 13:23:43 not at all Apr 17 13:23:49 the app will be on community OBS Apr 17 13:23:53 it's on gitorious Apr 17 13:24:00 and it's not installable Apr 17 13:24:03 it comes from appup if you ask for the source Apr 17 13:24:12 nothing in the GPL obliges me to share Apr 17 13:24:19 hence the Affero license Apr 17 13:24:43 which extends sharing to situations where code is not actually distributed Apr 17 13:25:04 just because my app is gpl doesn't give you a right to have a copy Apr 17 13:25:04 i would say that all the v3 variant would have a problem with this Apr 17 13:25:21 why? show me the clause obliging me to give you my code Apr 17 13:25:47 *if* I give you the binary (under GPL) I must give you the src Apr 17 13:25:53 if I don't ... tough Apr 17 13:26:12 if you sell me a copy of a GPLv3 app on a locked down device, don't you also have to supply me with any and all means to recompile said app and install it on said locked down device? Apr 17 13:26:14 if I only choose to distribute via appup and you don't use appup ... tough Apr 17 13:26:24 yep... community OBS Apr 17 13:26:49 nb... install it.... not AFAIK Apr 17 13:27:33 also, not "run" it either Apr 17 13:27:43 it's required if you sell a device like tivo where the firmware is signed, to include the signing key such that a user compiled firmware can be installed on the actual hardware you bought Apr 17 13:27:52 GPL code is allowed to access a NW service and refuse to run if you don't have an account Apr 17 13:28:02 I can take your account away if you don't pay Apr 17 13:28:04 therefore i would argue the same applies to after market app purchases Apr 17 13:28:21 they aren't signed Apr 17 13:28:33 appup purchases are not signed? Apr 17 13:28:44 not in a way to prevent installation Apr 17 13:28:58 they run a NW service to obtain a UID Apr 17 13:29:01 so devices which use appup will not need to be jailbroken? Apr 17 13:29:08 and thereafter use that to restrict runtime Apr 17 13:29:26 you can then take my GPL code and remove that Apr 17 13:29:34 and then share it Apr 17 13:29:35 and it will run on the real hardware? Apr 17 13:29:38 yep Apr 17 13:29:41 ok Apr 17 13:29:45 but you can't sell it via appup Apr 17 13:29:47 that's rather different then Apr 17 13:30:00 'cos appup requires you have that Apr 17 13:30:08 see, i was working on the assumption that all appup software would be signed, and unsigned code would simply not run Apr 17 13:30:19 not AIUI Apr 17 13:30:23 ie the only way to get software is to buy from appup Apr 17 13:30:31 but the argument was surely about you selling my code on appup Apr 17 13:30:52 even if you get my code from gitorious I think you should not be allowed to do that Apr 17 13:31:00 unless I agree Apr 17 13:32:00 if the original artist is easily identifiable, what' stopping you from asking him/her ? Apr 17 13:32:09 100% agree Apr 17 13:32:14 fair enough, unless appup is the only way to obtain the software, then it's wrong Apr 17 13:32:24 on some devices... it will be Apr 17 13:32:45 mmm Apr 17 13:33:12 I should say... on some devices the user will not have any other clear way to install SW Apr 17 13:33:32 and MeeGo security policy may not permit the user to install SW Apr 17 13:33:38 RMS is very clear that the GPL is designed to prevent a single developer from sitting on their software and not improving it, and also preventing anyone else from improving it Apr 17 13:33:42 that's not part of this debate Apr 17 13:33:53 and incedentally nor is GPL3 Apr 17 13:34:06 oh but it is Apr 17 13:34:15 not unless my SW is GPL3 Apr 17 13:34:18 because by going to appstore route you;ve found yet another loophole Apr 17 13:34:24 ali12341, wut? what's wrong with the GPL? Apr 17 13:34:31 GPL3 Apr 17 13:34:33 vs 2 Apr 17 13:34:39 Venemo: read the scrollback Apr 17 13:34:50 [15:32] RMS is very clear that the GPL is designed to prevent a single developer from sitting on their software and not improving it, and also preventing anyone else from improving it Apr 17 13:34:59 why would it prevent you from improving ti? Apr 17 13:35:03 I don't get it? Apr 17 13:35:08 Venemo: you;re reading it wrong Apr 17 13:35:18 the key word is "from sitting on it and not improving it" Apr 17 13:35:25 and it doesn't Apr 17 13:35:26 Venemo: the GPL is designed to stop the developer from preventing others from improving the software Apr 17 13:35:30 someone else can pick it up and do what they want with it Apr 17 13:36:08 w00t_: yes exactly. except that they can't sell it on appup at least under the theoretical system we were discussing Apr 17 13:36:09 however, my proposal is that AppUp should give copyright holders priority for distributing OSS code via AppUp Apr 17 13:36:29 Is there something wrong with community obs? Apr 17 13:36:30 and if the holder doesn't accept your changes Apr 17 13:36:34 alterego: nope Apr 17 13:36:36 I'm getting basic auto failures. Apr 17 13:36:38 oh Apr 17 13:36:40 sry Apr 17 13:36:41 lol Apr 17 13:36:42 maybe Apr 17 13:36:47 yeah, that's right Apr 17 13:36:50 s/auto/auth/ Apr 17 13:36:51 mhm Apr 17 13:37:02 i'm getting basic auth failures on pub.OBS too Apr 17 13:37:14 I dont think its personal Apr 17 13:37:26 Is there a way to perform an osc chroot without having it talk to the obs? :) Apr 17 13:37:35 Ah, -o Apr 17 13:38:07 i can't log in to build.pub.meego.com either Apr 17 13:38:33 looking Apr 17 13:38:41 hold the debate ;) Apr 17 13:38:45 :) Apr 17 13:38:47 :) Apr 17 13:38:55 * timoph presses pause Apr 17 13:41:49 try now... Apr 17 13:42:12 No luck Apr 17 13:42:21 earthling? Apr 17 13:42:38 Hrm? :) Apr 17 13:42:41 My username? Apr 17 13:42:45 yeah Apr 17 13:42:47 tswindell Apr 17 13:42:51 I see that username Apr 17 13:42:55 same thing for me "earthling" Apr 17 13:43:08 mmm Apr 17 13:43:13 yep. see you Apr 17 13:43:42 my home: repo is there Apr 17 13:43:58 hmmh. fails for me too Apr 17 13:50:01 good news... the list of obscommunity users isn't blank Apr 17 13:50:14 the bad news? Apr 17 13:50:32 the bad news is I haven't found the bad news Apr 17 14:01:08 more good news tlaukkanen can login Apr 17 14:01:17 bad news ... only he can login Apr 17 14:03:00 ah lets blame him Apr 17 14:06:43 Hahah Apr 17 14:20:44 any openldap people? the memberof seems to need regenerating Apr 17 14:28:39 ali12341, lbt - what if there was a license which had the same freedoms as the GPL, but with a section dealing with monetised app stores specifically and ensuring that contribution breakdown based on participation were "to best possible" split fairly. so the same app could have contributions towards debian even (which might be 1 or 2% of total code size) and when published on ovi or appup the proceedings were shared. it encourages people to l Apr 17 14:28:39 ook at diversifying where apps are made and ensures people get what a fair chance of income for participation Apr 17 14:29:43 the GPL has never been about guaranteeing income from selling software Apr 17 14:29:50 I know Apr 17 14:29:59 but it is also not dealing with paid distribution Apr 17 14:30:36 the GPL also isn't about garuanteeing software at no cost Apr 17 14:31:33 berndhs: the GPL is designed to guarantee that the maximum cost of a piece of software is equal to the cost of your time spent extending an existing piece of GPL software to do what you want Apr 17 14:32:07 as opposed to classic proprietary licences which are designed to guarantee the minimum cost is whatever the market will pay Apr 17 14:32:11 copying something and then selling it is not "extending" Apr 17 14:32:50 correct, if you do not need to extend the software to do what you want, then the maximum cost will be 0 Apr 17 14:32:57 if you decide to pay more that's your choice Apr 17 14:33:14 but this is about teh app store Apr 17 14:33:17 right ? Apr 17 14:33:27 the method of distribution is irrelevant Apr 17 14:33:29 no berndhs - this is about any distribution method Apr 17 14:33:37 which may also be on the cover of a magazine Apr 17 14:33:48 or included with device Apr 17 14:33:53 I though it was a debate about one specific app store Apr 17 14:34:08 i hope not, otherwise we will have the same discussion next week Apr 17 14:34:12 and that will get boring Apr 17 14:34:19 where that app store would give preference to the original copyright holders Apr 17 14:34:56 it's a debate about a method of circumventing the GPL by making an agreement with a third party Apr 17 14:35:10 technically it would be nice to offer a breakdown of participation along with each OSS app in a store Apr 17 14:35:24 and allow deriviates and stuff too Apr 17 14:35:35 but still using the various contributions Apr 17 14:35:47 my point is this : if Alice has some packages in pub.meego.com, and Bob decides to seell Alices meego pacakges Apr 17 14:36:02 then Bob should ask ALice first and propose a fair deal Apr 17 14:36:08 ali12341, why circumvent it? distribution on debian stable is the same Apr 17 14:36:09 not according to the GPL Apr 17 14:36:12 just monetary value == 0 Apr 17 14:36:23 according to the GPL alice has no right to prevent bob Apr 17 14:36:36 who wants to prevent it? Apr 17 14:36:36 yeah but Bob is an asshole in this scenario Apr 17 14:36:42 alice must beat bob by innovating and producing improvements to the code faster than bob can rip them off Apr 17 14:36:54 this is by design in order to ensure innovation keeps happening Apr 17 14:37:00 or Alice can hire poeple to beat up Bob :) Apr 17 14:37:08 yes, but if the app store already could look at the git history of the package in question Apr 17 14:37:09 nobody disputes that bob is an asshole Apr 17 14:37:13 Bob isn't after innovation, Bob is after a quick buck Apr 17 14:37:30 which is why bob will ultimately fail when everyone realises his products are crap Apr 17 14:37:30 and be able to happily perform the cake cutting Apr 17 14:37:37 but all this is irrelevent Apr 17 14:37:57 no, "his product" might be amazing because of all the hard work the author does Apr 17 14:38:09 it won't be as good as the author's version Apr 17 14:38:15 why not? Apr 17 14:38:22 it will be the same as the authors version Apr 17 14:38:24 because the author will continue to innovate Apr 17 14:38:32 and Bob will update his package Apr 17 14:38:49 updating a package will take less time and effort than innovating Apr 17 14:38:50 Bob's innovation will be to offer it for $0.99 while Alice wants $1.01 Apr 17 14:38:52 well if the app store could see the history of both apps, alice and bob can both have their apps from same common core Apr 17 14:38:57 and everyone is happy Apr 17 14:39:05 you'll get updates from alice before you get them from bob Apr 17 14:39:14 because the contributions and hence store payments will be balanced Apr 17 14:39:30 yes, the GPL does not guarantee you the right to dictate the price of your software Apr 17 14:39:59 why should the app store support copying and re-labellling ? Apr 17 14:40:17 if Bob wants to copy, he should say that this is what he is doing Apr 17 14:40:34 lcuk: it is about AppUp, not distribution in general Apr 17 14:40:42 berndhs: yes, trademarks are the correct way to handle that Apr 17 14:41:09 berndhs: I think you and I are on the same wavelength here Apr 17 14:41:09 berndhs: under the proposed solution "only the copyright holder can upload" it is possible for alice to block bob's software even if bob has made significant improvements to it Apr 17 14:41:12 why specifically trademark ? why not the store ? Apr 17 14:41:30 ali12341: yes indeed it is possible for alice to block bob Apr 17 14:41:34 makes sense Apr 17 14:41:48 maybe, but you are proposing that a simple copy can be uploaded Apr 17 14:41:50 it makes sense if you want to have no competition Apr 17 14:42:07 ie you are alice Apr 17 14:42:08 and it's not "only the copyright holder" it is (maybe) "copyright holder can veto" Apr 17 14:42:19 that's the same thing Apr 17 14:42:21 ROFL Apr 17 14:42:28 too right I want no competition Apr 17 14:42:29 if you assume that copyright holders will always veto Apr 17 14:42:48 what gives you the right to upload my code to AppUp ? Apr 17 14:42:51 which does not seem like a resonable assumption Apr 17 14:42:55 lbt: the fact that you released it as GPL Apr 17 14:42:59 I say if you want to make money off other people's work, you should give them a share Apr 17 14:42:59 no.. Apr 17 14:43:00 once someone starts selling something that I've written and giving away free I'm changing to more restrictive license Apr 17 14:43:11 that gives you the right to ask AppUp Apr 17 14:43:18 lbt, berndhs: then you should not release your code as GPL Apr 17 14:43:21 they don't have to do what you say Apr 17 14:43:25 bullshit Apr 17 14:43:36 you can take my code and sell it Apr 17 14:43:48 lbt: likewise, appup do not have to do what alice says, ie alice should not get a veto Apr 17 14:43:49 timoph: if you use something more restrictive than the GPL, you have to stop using other people's GPL code Apr 17 14:43:53 but me and appup ... we agreed to partner on this Apr 17 14:44:00 thiago: yep. I know Apr 17 14:44:25 and nothing gives you the right to force Bob to take your code to the streetcorner and hawk it Apr 17 14:44:42 sure you can ask Bill Apr 17 14:44:54 and it still doesn't stop the redistributing of the older code Apr 17 14:45:02 besides, the GPL still forces the transferring of all rights Apr 17 14:45:05 thiago: big backlogk Apr 17 14:45:17 the point is for me and Appup to have an agreement Apr 17 14:45:35 as copyright holder they will respect my work Apr 17 14:45:43 if you let Bob copy everyone's code and sell it for less, you ensure that the original authors stop working Apr 17 14:45:44 and if someone turns up with my code Apr 17 14:45:49 yeah. the ability just to package and sell GPL stuff in an app store just sounds wrong Apr 17 14:45:58 and tries to distribute via appup they'll say "sure" Apr 17 14:46:01 berndhs: that's the same argument that every anti-GPL troll makes at every lecture RMS ever gives Apr 17 14:46:05 but if I then say "hey, please stop" Apr 17 14:46:07 they will Apr 17 14:46:19 ali12341: no, it's not Apr 17 14:46:26 this is nothing to do with GPL Apr 17 14:46:34 you can take my code and sell it Apr 17 14:46:35 I'm not anti-GPL I'm anti plagiarism Apr 17 14:46:36 please do Apr 17 14:47:01 maybe a better approach would be to submit the same app to the store and ask nothing for it Apr 17 14:47:12 but ali12341.... nothing stops me from going to your business partner and saying "hey, you know I wrote that code. Fancy working with me? Apr 17 14:47:20 lbt: correct Apr 17 14:47:33 ali12341: and that's what I'm preemptively doing with appup Apr 17 14:47:42 timoph: why should the original copyright holder have to fight (marketing wise) against the one just exploiting the work? Apr 17 14:48:16 lbt: no, what you are doing is using a third party agreement to prevent people from approaching your customers and offering the same service for less money Apr 17 14:48:17 in the meego tablet image there is no webgl in the browser, is it coming at some point? Apr 17 14:48:39 why is it about exploiting? as long as credits get back to authors it should be possible to have 1000 variations of same open code on the store Apr 17 14:48:45 lbt: so the appup thing is the exact opposite of the example you gave Apr 17 14:49:04 lcuk: I don't quite see what the benefit of that would be Apr 17 14:49:18 jonnor, how many fart apps are there on certain stores? Apr 17 14:49:47 supposing someone wrote the most awesome fart generator Apr 17 14:49:48 well. not that I've thought about it more than 2 secs.. When I'm licensing my stuff with GPL, I'm also giving permission to sell it if someone really wants to pay for OSS Apr 17 14:49:58 not/now Apr 17 14:50:00 lcuk: and what is the value of that? Apr 17 14:50:08 you're giving those options, yes Apr 17 14:50:18 jonnor, what is the disadvantage in that? Apr 17 14:50:49 1000 apps == 1000 people marketing apps in their own way to their own set of friends Apr 17 14:51:01 IMO selling something that anyone can package won't be a long term business Apr 17 14:51:13 exactly Apr 17 14:51:19 lcuk: it becomes harder to find the best fart app. Apr 17 14:51:26 lcuk: or indeed, a good one Apr 17 14:51:29 point being Apr 17 14:51:34 so? Apr 17 14:51:39 try a few :) Apr 17 14:51:50 i see hundreds of same products when I go to supermarket Apr 17 14:51:52 it might be perfectly legal to have an agreement with appup to limit how your competitors can use your GPL code Apr 17 14:51:58 ali12341: yes I am indeed "using a third party agreement to prevent people from approaching your customers and offering the same service for less money" Apr 17 14:52:02 but it is completely opposite to the spirit of the GPL Apr 17 14:52:16 so if you want to do this, why use GPL code? Apr 17 14:52:16 bullshit Apr 17 14:52:28 unless you are using *someone elses GPL code* rather than rewrite it yourself Apr 17 14:52:30 you seem to think that GPL has something to do with money Apr 17 14:52:33 in which case, pot, meet kettle Apr 17 14:52:34 it doesn't Apr 17 14:52:42 lcuk: having to try hundreds of products to find the appropriate one does not seem like an advantage to me. Apr 17 14:52:51 GPL != $$$ Apr 17 14:53:01 GPL == right to redistribute and change Apr 17 14:53:04 lbt: the GPL is designed to prevent companies from holding a monopoly on the supply of software Apr 17 14:53:09 no it's not Apr 17 14:53:23 it's designed to encourage redist and freedom Apr 17 14:53:27 * lcuk vanishes to more birthday stuff Apr 17 14:53:31 o/ Apr 17 14:53:37 lcuk: have fun Apr 17 14:53:55 getting used to being offline more, shall be on in more balanced sessions \o Apr 17 14:53:56 i'm not sure why you think this has anything to do with money, since you are the only one who is trying to protect a revenue stream Apr 17 14:54:16 by blocking people from giving away the thing you are trying to make artificially scarce through third party agreements Apr 17 14:54:57 ali12341: you're saying if Alice uses the GPL, the only party with no rights is Alice Apr 17 14:55:07 ali12341: why would one want to enable people that to little to no work to give away software that other people wrote? Apr 17 14:55:11 alice has the same rights as everyone else Apr 17 14:55:27 Bob has rights, end users have rights, but not the original author Apr 17 14:55:53 well the orinal author has to rights too Apr 17 14:56:03 I wonder how much effort does it require for me to understand qt enough to make even a rudimentary app for reading project gutenberg stuff on the exopc Apr 17 14:56:31 plus he's the copyright holder and has given up some of his claims on the code by lisencing it as GPL Apr 17 14:56:52 Myrtti: I'm pretty green on this stuff too, but my understanding is that QML makes it very easy Apr 17 14:57:03 Alice hasn't given uo anything, ALice has granted rights to others Apr 17 14:57:19 I've studied it a bit but I'm far from being proficient enough to invent something "new" Apr 17 14:57:39 the copyright holder is the one with most rights Apr 17 14:57:43 same thing written differently IMO Apr 17 14:57:44 timoph: which can be reversed as soon as he releases the next version. Apr 17 14:57:48 GPL isn't giving up copyright. Apr 17 14:58:06 I'm trying to fix ldap so not paying full attention Apr 17 14:58:18 if you chose not to use GPL you may do whatever you want of course Apr 17 14:58:29 yeah. poor choice in wording. I could explain this in finnish so it would make more sense :p Apr 17 14:58:42 Myrtti: Qt Creator? Apr 17 14:58:53 ali12341: now *that* is evil Apr 17 14:59:01 lbt: yup Apr 17 14:59:23 Myrtti: I'lll let you know soon... I'm working on an e2e install->Apps Apr 17 14:59:35 (ie QtCreator/SDK install) Apr 17 14:59:52 lbt: I had it installed in January and it was in working condition then, but since I've gotten a new computer with new Ubuntu and my brain has gone into mush with personal/family/work issues Apr 17 15:00:01 the thing i don't understand is, you seem to have a philosophical belief that you should be allowed to veto others from selling your GPL'd software Apr 17 15:00:10 ali12341: no Apr 17 15:00:19 I never said that Apr 17 15:00:25 what did you say then? Apr 17 15:00:55 I said that the Intel AppUp store should have a policy that allows copyright holders to 'veto' the selling of their code. Apr 17 15:01:03 this is not me, this is AppUp Apr 17 15:01:11 lbt: why do you think that? Apr 17 15:01:21 is it because you believe that developers want it? Apr 17 15:01:29 Because then I will a) get revenue, b) release GPL code Apr 17 15:01:36 if so, why do you believe that? is it because you yourself want that veto? Apr 17 15:01:44 yes Apr 17 15:01:51 so in fact, you do want that veto Apr 17 15:01:56 lbt: I don't think the AppUp can do that Apr 17 15:02:03 note that *you* do not have to implement that Apr 17 15:02:05 thiago: yes. Apr 17 15:02:06 I don't think it's a good idea either :D Apr 17 15:02:16 anyone could download a GPL app for free and re-upload it for paying money Apr 17 15:02:29 so if you think appupp should do it, do you think that all appstores should do it? Apr 17 15:02:30 it's completely legal Apr 17 15:02:34 If someone comes along and does a better job than you, and is using your code. I'd probably prefer to pay them :P Apr 17 15:02:42 thiago: they can say "if the copyright holder of an app asks another user not to distribute that app then they will respect the holder's wishes" Apr 17 15:03:01 lbt: Isn't that exactly what happened with VLC and Apple's App Store? Apr 17 15:03:01 alterego: you can Apr 17 15:03:06 Jaffa: yes Apr 17 15:03:09 and the kernel Apr 17 15:03:13 what if they modify the app and re-upload it? Apr 17 15:03:17 substantial new modification Apr 17 15:03:19 i'm not talking about technicalities of what is allowed, i am talking about philosophy Apr 17 15:03:28 thiago: then I get veto rights Apr 17 15:03:43 but not the right to upload their mods Apr 17 15:03:47 but if we split it... Apr 17 15:03:50 then that's fine Apr 17 15:04:04 that's also thinking that you can't link to a GPL library and sell for money Apr 17 15:04:11 you'd have to get the permission of all copyright holders Apr 17 15:04:15 different Apr 17 15:04:20 lbt: so if you think appup should do it, do you think that all appstores should do it? Apr 17 15:04:24 thiago: compliance Apr 17 15:04:27 lbt: no, it's technically the same Apr 17 15:04:34 it has nothing to do with the compliance Apr 17 15:04:37 does Apr 17 15:04:42 there are no GPL libraries in the compliancy Apr 17 15:04:42 appup are not sharing meego Apr 17 15:04:56 so if you're using a GPL library, it's a private lib Apr 17 15:05:08 I can't statically link a GPL lib... no Apr 17 15:05:12 well I can Apr 17 15:05:20 but if the holder asks me to stop, I must Apr 17 15:05:33 they holder cannot force you Apr 17 15:05:39 no Apr 17 15:05:40 not me Apr 17 15:05:40 they gave you the right to do it and cannot take it back Apr 17 15:05:42 appup Apr 17 15:05:44 I think you all need more cheesecake Apr 17 15:05:45 it's a policy Apr 17 15:05:47 not a law Apr 17 15:05:50 yes, appup could do it Apr 17 15:05:58 but I'm trying to point out that this gets hairy very quickly Apr 17 15:06:13 actually compliance makes it easy for most 1-man apps Apr 17 15:06:31 the only code being distributed is usually single-holder Apr 17 15:06:38 for say, QML apps Apr 17 15:06:55 and this allows GPL apps via the appstore Apr 17 15:07:01 and provides $$$ Apr 17 15:07:09 they're still free via MeeGo OBS Apr 17 15:07:16 and they can still be shared Apr 17 15:07:24 and onwards anything goes Apr 17 15:07:42 but AppUp *policy* is to work with the c. holder Apr 17 15:08:19 so if someone uploads the 100% C.lbt shopper app and sells it for $0 vs my $5 Apr 17 15:08:28 and I say please don't Apr 17 15:08:43 then the end user has to get my app via some other means Apr 17 15:08:54 eg c.obs, google, github Apr 17 15:09:09 but.... the Dixons user will probably give me $5 Apr 17 15:09:10 the problem is when the copyright split is quite complex Apr 17 15:09:14 indeed Apr 17 15:09:17 suppose you use a 100k-line GPL library Apr 17 15:09:23 static? Apr 17 15:09:25 and you have 5k lines of your own app Apr 17 15:09:31 static or private shared Apr 17 15:09:45 (OK) then any one of the holders can object Apr 17 15:09:45 you're responsible for just less than 5% of the copyright Apr 17 15:09:47 that's why you use only LGPL libraries Apr 17 15:09:55 should the app up contact each and every copyright holder in the library? Apr 17 15:09:59 berndhs: same deal for LGPL Apr 17 15:10:03 thiago: no Apr 17 15:10:06 the licence used is irrelevant if any copyright holder has a veto Apr 17 15:10:08 this is reactive Apr 17 15:10:15 mhhhh, cheesecake... Apr 17 15:10:17 not proactive Apr 17 15:10:31 thiago: I think it's reactive to veto request. Apr 17 15:10:47 yep ... "hey, that's my shopper app.... stop giving it away" Apr 17 15:11:00 thiago: i.e. any (c) owner can assert "that's my code, please don't be selling it" Apr 17 15:11:16 appup could do that Apr 17 15:11:17 i still don't understand why you released it under the GPL if it's 100% your own work and you want to impose additional restrictions Apr 17 15:11:26 and, tbh I think that you should declare "all my code" Apr 17 15:11:55 where "my" may == "our" Apr 17 15:12:01 not sure about that Apr 17 15:12:09 This is, almost certainly, going to be the policy of all app stores anyway. The source code licensing will play very little part. Apr 17 15:12:49 I think it's fascinating ... could really enable a $$ model for true GPL code Apr 17 15:13:09 where geeks win and end-users who learn about freedom win Apr 17 15:13:25 and end users see value in service Apr 17 15:13:33 as long as they don't want the freedom of competing with the original author of the software lol Apr 17 15:13:45 IMO the best policy would be: if it's OSS then it costs 0. otherwise it will just cause bad blood Apr 17 15:13:46 they can compete ali12341 Apr 17 15:13:48 really Apr 17 15:13:52 no they can't Apr 17 15:13:56 yes they can Apr 17 15:14:02 because you want the right of veto in any store you are selling in Apr 17 15:14:06 lbt, but unless the contribution breakdown is included and usable then peripheral contributions which go to support and help the main app (for instance a porting effort to new platform) Apr 17 15:14:12 they just can't use the original author's code to compete... Apr 17 15:14:16 that's not competition Apr 17 15:14:17 therefore by definition they cannot compete Apr 17 15:14:18 would not be supportable Apr 17 15:14:28 they can give it away Apr 17 15:14:46 but not anywhere where you are selling it Apr 17 15:14:49 they can start a political party saying how all the world should just get rid of money... Apr 17 15:14:49 teh current economic model sucks for small developers, its not sustainable Apr 17 15:15:07 * timoph needs cheesecake Apr 17 15:15:08 ali12341: they can't leech... sorry Apr 17 15:15:26 lcuk: there was talk at AppUp of 'components' Apr 17 15:15:27 lbt, but they can help to make the app better Apr 17 15:15:35 and providing a model to reimburse libs Apr 17 15:15:36 lbt, it is not even as far as components Apr 17 15:15:43 consider someone making debian packaging Apr 17 15:15:47 for your shopper Apr 17 15:15:49 yep Apr 17 15:15:59 so then your app is not only available in appup Apr 17 15:16:01 but also on debian Apr 17 15:16:04 sure Apr 17 15:16:08 for 100% free Apr 17 15:16:12 should debian respect vetos from copyright holders? Apr 17 15:16:20 ali12341: is that their policy? Apr 17 15:16:22 it would be nice to allow some fraction of revenue to go towards them Apr 17 15:16:22 I think not Apr 17 15:16:32 it's not a veto if it's optional Apr 17 15:16:32 lcuk: no, not at all Apr 17 15:16:35 it's just a suggestion Apr 17 15:16:40 say you package your app for debian but do a really crap job, then someone else comes along and packages it doing a much better job... you would then be allowed to veto them just out of spite Apr 17 15:16:54 lbt: i'm not asking about anyone's "policy" but your own Apr 17 15:16:57 thiago: this is AppUp. It's not optional Apr 17 15:16:59 lbt, no one person can do everything! Apr 17 15:17:10 lcuk: this isn't about debian Apr 17 15:17:15 sure Apr 17 15:17:15 it's about MeeGo Apr 17 15:17:18 now Apr 17 15:17:20 * thiago was answering about Debian, but yeah Apr 17 15:17:41 well whn a new view on shopper is offered as a patch Apr 17 15:17:47 if a packager packages my app for AppUp and comes to me and says "80/20, you/me" ... I may say "sure" Apr 17 15:17:52 or someone writes documentation Apr 17 15:18:09 lcuk: yep... now that's interesting Apr 17 15:18:15 lcuk: that stuff should go upstream Apr 17 15:18:27 does that mean that I need copyright assignment for patches to my app? Apr 17 15:18:37 well the way you are talking, yes Apr 17 15:18:40 ep Apr 17 15:18:44 I agree Apr 17 15:18:51 lets be clear here.... Apr 17 15:18:52 but the way I am talking, it would not matter - the collective pool would grow Apr 17 15:18:53 i agree too Apr 17 15:19:00 I release my code under GPL Apr 17 15:19:13 otherwise a competitor can stealthily submit a patch then veto your app later on just to piss you off Apr 17 15:19:19 ali12341: ye Apr 17 15:19:20 s Apr 17 15:19:36 so again... AppUp policy comes into play Apr 17 15:19:47 thing is i can understand why you want it to work this way Apr 17 15:19:52 they may say "can't be arsed ... no money for $$$ code" Apr 17 15:19:54 what i can't understand is why you release your code as GPL Apr 17 15:20:04 ali12341: WHAT? Apr 17 15:20:09 because I like GPL Apr 17 15:20:11 it's good Apr 17 15:20:20 and it's *NOT ABOUT MONEY* Apr 17 15:20:21 but you want to impose additional restrictions Apr 17 15:20:26 no I don't Apr 17 15:20:32 so you don't want a veto? Apr 17 15:20:38 your arguments are wrong Apr 17 15:20:50 you have failed to demonstrate that Apr 17 15:20:51 AppUp policy is not a restriction Apr 17 15:20:57 if you have a veto, you can impose additional restrictions Apr 17 15:21:02 sure it is Apr 17 15:21:03 no you can't Apr 17 15:21:04 Ah, another OSS/GPL argument! Apr 17 15:21:08 no Apr 17 15:21:15 RST38h: this isn't the usual one though lol Apr 17 15:21:27 if me and a friend decide to do something... you can't make my friend do the same for you Apr 17 15:21:37 he doesn't like you Apr 17 15:21:43 yeah but ali12341 has a point there. IMO that kind model conflicts with GPL's idea Apr 17 15:21:49 he thinks you don't contribute to the ecosystem Apr 17 15:21:55 and thinks you'll make me sad Apr 17 15:22:00 so he doesn't play with you Apr 17 15:22:05 this is not a restriction Apr 17 15:22:10 it's your personality Apr 17 15:22:13 you leech Apr 17 15:22:17 lbt: following the letter of the GPL but not the philosophy and then claiming the high ground is disingenuous Apr 17 15:22:24 this does not make us all better Apr 17 15:22:25 Ok. I gave my vote. Done my part. Apr 17 15:22:26 ali: So what is it about? Apr 17 15:23:10 RST38h: it's about whether making an agreement with a third party to add additional restrictions on the use of your "GPL" code Apr 17 15:23:12 RST38h: I think AppUp should allow copyright holders to veto the "sale" of their apps by other users Apr 17 15:23:15 lbt: That is not quite the case here. If your friend is appup, this would be you asking him to not play with the other guy Apr 17 15:23:20 because he is a leech Apr 17 15:23:22 yes jonnor Apr 17 15:23:53 because appup wants to encourage creativity, not mindless copying Apr 17 15:23:55 ali: Not possible, violates GPL, end of story. Apr 17 15:23:59 that is you and your friend imposing a restriction Apr 17 15:24:05 lbt: And it does allow that? Apr 17 15:24:13 RST38h: it may Apr 17 15:24:18 it's not violating GPL Apr 17 15:24:21 lbt: And has anyone contacted Intel Legal? Apr 17 15:24:26 RST38h: I will Apr 17 15:24:34 we spoke to Appup at Summit Apr 17 15:24:39 RST38h: yeah we're not discussing whether it is technically allowed or not, we're discussion the philosophical implications. at least i am... Apr 17 15:24:39 lbt: Ah, wait, you are selling your GPLed app and are pissed off about somebody doing the same? Apr 17 15:24:44 yes Apr 17 15:24:51 careful of words Apr 17 15:25:02 lots of appup people coming to the conference Apr 17 15:25:07 ali: Because it is not allowed by the GPL, it should not happen and has no phhilosophical implications. Apr 17 15:25:18 I am working with Intel to distribute my app to users. They pay for the medium. Apr 17 15:25:19 lbt: Ok, then you are the idiot, and those guys are right Apr 17 15:25:27 RST38h: nope... sorry Apr 17 15:25:33 *facepalm* Apr 17 15:25:36 RST38h: well, it has philosophical implications :p they would just be void Apr 17 15:25:39 Yes, lbt. Do you want an explanation? Apr 17 15:25:42 yes Apr 17 15:27:07 my point is and has always been that regardless of technicalities, using such an agreement would go against the spirit of the GPL, so why use the GPL in the first palce? Apr 17 15:27:14 lbt: When you GPL your app, you automatically (see GPL) allow anyone who gets it to do whatever they wish to it (including commercial redistribution) ad long as a bunch of conditions are met Apr 17 15:27:30 Please note that a) app is GPL. b) user is free to distribute and sell it anywhere they like. c) AppUp has a policy to deal with holders. Apr 17 15:27:36 lbt: Now, among other things, these guys may also decide to resell it. Apr 17 15:27:41 they can Apr 17 15:27:43 I'm happy Apr 17 15:28:01 they can make CDs with it ... anything Apr 17 15:28:02 lbt: AppUp cannot refuse them to do it in this case, because these guys are not violating anything Apr 17 15:28:04 but you're not happy if they give it away for free? Apr 17 15:28:08 ali12341: you want to encourage people to write free software though. If you make it beneficial to not free your software (because it will be much harder to get any revenue), less people will likely create free software Apr 17 15:28:23 ali12341: that seems like something we would want to try to fight, right? Apr 17 15:28:24 RST38h: AppUp are not obliged by any law to deal with any given party Apr 17 15:28:39 lbt: Including you, mind you Apr 17 15:28:41 RST38h: check the debate Apr 17 15:28:44 yes Apr 17 15:29:09 jonnor: what's your point? Apr 17 15:29:20 lbt: So, however pissed you are, AppUp is well within their rights here Apr 17 15:29:24 AppUp are essentially charging to deliver the GPL SW. (like FSF used to do) Apr 17 15:29:29 RST38h: wait Apr 17 15:29:32 lbt: BTW, same stuff occurs on Android Store all the time AFAIK Apr 17 15:29:36 you think I want to stop Appup Apr 17 15:29:38 I don't Apr 17 15:29:44 ok,so what do you want? Apr 17 15:29:54 I want AppUp to make a policy statement Apr 17 15:30:01 ok, of what kind? Apr 17 15:30:02 ask me what and why Apr 17 15:30:22 lbt: why don't you use some other open source license for your app? why even involving GPL here? Apr 17 15:30:35 lbt: What policy statement? Apr 17 15:30:46 "If the copyright holder of an app asks us not to distribute. We will respect their moral right" Apr 17 15:30:58 ssvb: GPL rules Apr 17 15:31:08 even if the copyright holder has chosen not to sell their app in appup? Apr 17 15:31:13 nb... see Linus and kernel Apr 17 15:31:22 lbt: effectively you just need a modified GPL with additional clause Apr 17 15:31:29 ssvb: no not at all Apr 17 15:31:33 bad idea Apr 17 15:31:38 lbt: Ok. Because you GPLed your app, they have a right to distribute. Apr 17 15:31:40 you may sell my code Apr 17 15:31:46 yes, they have the right Apr 17 15:31:49 lbt: And you gave them that right yourself. Apr 17 15:31:49 not the obligation Apr 17 15:31:54 yes, I did Apr 17 15:31:58 not only that Apr 17 15:32:00 lbt: but the other standard GPL license users should not be hurt by you, that would just suck Apr 17 15:32:02 So, what are you complaining about? Apr 17 15:32:15 when they sell my app to a user I *oblige* them to make the src available Apr 17 15:32:16 If you really want to control your app distribution, DO NOT GPL IT Apr 17 15:32:21 no Apr 17 15:32:22 wrong Apr 17 15:32:27 RST38h: apparently he has a "moral right" to veto anyone from profiting from his code (or even giving it away) Apr 17 15:32:31 If you GPL it, do not complain Apr 17 15:32:35 I simply deal wihth the distributor Apr 17 15:32:38 ali:This contradicts GPL. Apr 17 15:32:58 RST38h: maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. IANAL. but it certainly is against the philosophy of the GPL Apr 17 15:33:13 ali: It really contradicts GPL, sorry Apr 17 15:33:18 RST38h: you have a brain ... pay attention Apr 17 15:33:28 ali: even IANAL can tell you that after reading GPL Apr 17 15:33:49 I am not preventing anything Apr 17 15:33:52 lbt: Ok. So, AppUp is distributing your app. Do they make the source code available too? Apr 17 15:33:56 yes Apr 17 15:34:01 of course Apr 17 15:34:04 lbt: then they are within GPL Apr 17 15:34:07 yes Apr 17 15:34:21 lbt: Once again: what makes you think you can veto redistribution by them? Apr 17 15:34:34 please listen Apr 17 15:34:38 listening Apr 17 15:34:50 I do not want to veto redistribution by AppUp Apr 17 15:35:13 I want AppUp to veto redistribution by AppUp Apr 17 15:35:40 on your request? Apr 17 15:35:42 *facepalm* Apr 17 15:35:45 They say to me "what do you think lbt?" Apr 17 15:35:51 I say ... no Apr 17 15:35:54 they say "ok" Apr 17 15:36:03 this is not me "demanding" Apr 17 15:36:06 And they say, "well, it is GPLed, so we distribute it anyway" Apr 17 15:36:08 I have no such right Apr 17 15:36:11 yep Apr 17 15:36:14 wait Apr 17 15:36:16 You want them to listen to you? Apr 17 15:36:17 now... Apr 17 15:36:19 yes Apr 17 15:36:21 ask why Apr 17 15:36:24 Good luck with that. Apr 17 15:36:24 I'd say you picked the wrong license. :) Apr 17 15:36:28 nope Apr 17 15:36:33 It does not matter "why", really. Apr 17 15:36:34 I spoke to them all weekend Apr 17 15:36:39 lbt: now listen to me :) Apr 17 15:36:52 you guys think this is a license issue Apr 17 15:36:53 it's not Apr 17 15:36:54 cheesecake Apr 17 15:37:01 it is nothing to do with that Apr 17 15:37:08 Myrtti: hmmh :p~ Apr 17 15:37:11 it is to do with encouraging the MeeGo ecosystem Apr 17 15:37:13 how? Apr 17 15:37:20 How does AppUp decide it's your code? Apr 17 15:37:22 by working with GPL developers Apr 17 15:37:43 GAN900: good question ... lets assume that it has a copyright on it Apr 17 15:38:14 Yay! Apr 17 15:38:18 Myrtti: btw, did you try areena on full screen. flash crashes in full screen for me Apr 17 15:38:25 AppUp are very keen to encourage us Apr 17 15:38:40 they want to find ways... they are literally paying us money to make apps Apr 17 15:38:42 lbt: I'm participating in development of one free software application (a game) and might want to publish it on some app stores some time later, I may want to abandon this activity any time and pass it to somebody else, and I surely do *not* want anyone to bother me asking for any special permissions to do this Apr 17 15:38:56 I've not built locally using osc build: meego-handset-dialer-0.1.19-2.armv7hl.rpm Apr 17 15:38:58 :D Apr 17 15:38:58 ssvb: that's fine Apr 17 15:38:58 lbt: I think it is like encouraging toads to fly Apr 17 15:39:02 s/not/now/ Apr 17 15:39:19 lbt: No matter how much you do it, toads will not fly. And the GPLed sodftware will notmake you money. Apr 17 15:39:27 RST38h: wrong Apr 17 15:39:32 it's making me plenty thanks Apr 17 15:39:35 lbt: YOu want to encourage the "ecosystem"? Allow people to profit from their work. Apr 17 15:39:55 RST38h: you don't grok GPL economics.... Apr 17 15:40:13 Actually, I probably do it better than somepeople here :) Apr 17 15:40:17 true Apr 17 15:40:24 lbt: It's not fine for me! Moreover, I may be hit by a bus tomorrow, and in this case the development of this application has a risk of be deadlocked. I want to ensure that this will not happen and GPL license protects my rights here. Apr 17 15:40:33 ssvb: it will Apr 17 15:40:35 RST38h: that seems to be what lbt is trying to do Apr 17 15:40:37 lbt: and you want to take this right from me Apr 17 15:40:40 The only way to profit from a GPL product is to take it from someone else and resell Apr 17 15:40:44 ssvb: god no Apr 17 15:40:56 RST38h: bullshit Apr 17 15:41:04 RST38h: what? what is the logic? Apr 17 15:41:04 Adding legal protections / services / support / etc Apr 17 15:41:18 lbt: Really? Look at any successful GPL company. Like Redhat ;) Apr 17 15:41:18 " take it from someone else " Apr 17 15:41:26 jonnor: The logic is simple Apr 17 15:41:43 RST38h: the only way to profit from GPL application is to provide a good paid (or donations based) support Apr 17 15:41:49 RST38h: RedHat writes huge amount of their product themselves (not everything, or even the majority, but still) Apr 17 15:41:53 jonnor: If you spend money on GPL development, someone else can always take the result of your work and create an identical company minus the money spent on development Apr 17 15:42:07 ssvb: what I'm saying is that if your game turns up on the appstore and you don't want it there... you ask them to take it down Apr 17 15:42:09 ssvb: Really? Apr 17 15:42:21 if you *do* want it there... or don't care... do nothing Apr 17 15:42:26 ssvb: What will prohibit someone else from taking your stuff and providing even better support for it? Apr 17 15:42:38 ssvb: And I do not even want to start on donations :) Apr 17 15:42:42 timoph: yup, same thing Apr 17 15:42:59 RST38h you are now arguing about GPL vs proprietary Apr 17 15:43:02 feel free Apr 17 15:43:04 RST38h: a typical effect of doing the development is that you gain (as a sideeffect) the competence to do support Apr 17 15:43:07 that's not something I care about Apr 17 15:43:07 RST38h: well, that's a jungle law here, survival for the fittest :) Apr 17 15:43:15 but I guess it's a thing of count your blessings. atleast there IS flash Apr 17 15:43:15 lbt: All I am saying is that "GPL economy" is an oxymoron. Apr 17 15:43:19 I would say that this is a core part of why RedHat is succesfull Apr 17 15:43:25 * lbt looks at his Jaguar Apr 17 15:43:34 RST38h: if I were afraid of this, then I would not use GPL in the first place Apr 17 15:43:41 jonnor: yeah that's why they are not releasing their kernel patches to make it harder for their competitors Apr 17 15:43:41 ssvb: And you just handicapped yourself by investing into a project that can be reused by nyone else at 0 cost Apr 17 15:44:03 ali12341: their kernel patches are released, just in a slightly less convenient way than before Apr 17 15:44:31 sorry, of course they release them, just not as a proper patch series Apr 17 15:44:32 or well, they don't release the individual patches as such, but the end-result Apr 17 15:44:44 but you know what i mean Apr 17 15:44:45 jonnor: indeed .... this is simply an anti-leech mechanism Apr 17 15:44:51 RST38h: not really, that's a hobby project :) more like GPL is perfect when abandoning something, and I would not want the people who could potentially pick it up to have any problems Apr 17 15:45:10 ssvb: I think you are drifting off topic here Apr 17 15:45:16 and if a certain app store enforces some weird policy, that would be a problem Apr 17 15:45:17 except it draws power (probably too much) from Intel's control of AppUp Apr 17 15:45:28 ssvb: weird? Apr 17 15:45:30 ali12341: yes, I know. They would probably be successfull without it as well though (just less so), so it does not make my point invalid Apr 17 15:45:32 RST38h: not really, I'm just protecting my rights here :) Apr 17 15:46:21 regardless of whether the GPL economy works, and regardless of whether any of these "anti-leech" measures works or is allowable, it's all against the philosophy of the GPL Apr 17 15:46:24 so why even bother? Apr 17 15:46:30 Astronauts on long space missions may not be able to take paracetamol to treat a headache or antibiotics to fight infection, a study has found. Apr 17 15:46:31 Hm Apr 17 15:46:34 no it isn't Apr 17 15:46:41 if you don't believe in the philosophy, why use it? Apr 17 15:46:46 FSF used to sell tapes with GPL code Apr 17 15:46:52 Forget that damn philosophy thing. It is against the letter of the GPL Apr 17 15:46:59 no it isn't Apr 17 15:47:10 lbt: did they also have an agreement with the USPO not to ship tapes from anyone else? Apr 17 15:47:20 nothing in the GPL obliges me and my mate to sell your code RST38h Apr 17 15:47:25 So, you either GPL your stuff and sit tight, or you release it under the license that says "I retain the right to veto redistribution: Apr 17 15:47:30 ali12341: no and nothing stopped them Apr 17 15:47:37 RST38h: it is maybe not if appUp is the one denying redistribution (and not the copyright holder)? Apr 17 15:47:41 lbt:First of all, I do not GPL code. Apr 17 15:47:44 lbt: nothing stopped them except that it would be completely against their entire philosophy Apr 17 15:47:44 RST38h: no license Apr 17 15:47:52 ali12341: not really Apr 17 15:47:56 I mean, appUp is under no obligation to redistribute something simply because it is GPL Apr 17 15:47:57 they did do that Apr 17 15:47:59 lbt:Secondly, GPL does not oblige, it allows in this case Apr 17 15:48:16 ali12341: they did have an agreement with their carrier that no-one else could use the carrier Apr 17 15:48:32 lbt: And I do not think AppUp guys have the same goals as yourself either Apr 17 15:48:35 lbt: i want to knwo more about this Apr 17 15:48:43 lbt: You just have selected the wrong license. Don't try to poison appup with some additional restrictions, which are even not compatible with GPL and can cause problems for other people Apr 17 15:48:59 the FSF paid a person to make the tapes. During office hours that person wan't allowed to make and sell tapes for other people. Apr 17 15:49:05 lbt: Their main goal at the moment is most likely to pool as many apps as possible in their store to insure positive progress reports on the AppUp project Apr 17 15:49:13 RST38h: and? Apr 17 15:49:39 lbt: And, everyone gets awarded, patted on the shoulder, and told to continue with the good work Apr 17 15:50:01 ali12341: that person was "the carrier" for that period. Probably just along the street. Apr 17 15:50:15 RST38h: now you're just trolling Apr 17 15:50:36 lbt: As opposed to the inquiry into "why the hell are we wasting money on this empty web site?" Apr 17 15:50:42 ssvb: nope. It's the right license Apr 17 15:51:00 lbt: wish I were. Apr 17 15:51:00 RST38h: ? not following Apr 17 15:51:15 lbt: it's a bit far from "don't do work for other people while we're paying you" to "don't do work for other people ever again" Apr 17 15:51:16 lbt: One more time Apr 17 15:51:38 (the empty website reference) Apr 17 15:51:55 lbt: If you need additional blanket protection to be enforced on everyone to make it work for you the way you want, then it is not the right license for you. Period. Apr 17 15:52:05 ssvb: pay attention Apr 17 15:52:07 lbt: Your view: "AppUp people are working on enabling the ecosystem, so why shouldn't they do what I say with my GPLed app, as this will be for the best of the ecosystem" Apr 17 15:52:11 there is no restriction Apr 17 15:52:30 RST38h: yep Apr 17 15:52:48 lbt: Their view: "If we let anyone withdraw their stuff from our store, what will be left? So, let us include every single thing we can legally include there." Apr 17 15:53:10 especially since that will be less work Apr 17 15:53:11 RST38h: no. That's your view of their view Apr 17 15:53:18 lbt: Right. Apr 17 15:53:36 lbt: But I have got your point of view right? Why do you think I have got their point of view wrong? Apr 17 15:53:37 Along with the general "MeeGo will fail, why bother" yadda yadaa Apr 17 15:53:41 No Apr 17 15:53:52 In fact, I do not believe that Meego will fail. Apr 17 15:53:59 RST38h: I spent several hours with them Apr 17 15:54:18 and... if they don't do what I say... then I will believe you Apr 17 15:54:23 It *may*, but it is just one of the outcomes Apr 17 15:54:30 lbt: why not simply let app packages maintained by copyrightholders / upstream project get a special annotation Apr 17 15:54:32 lbt: Ok. Apr 17 15:54:38 lbt: the restriction is that if I want to use someone's else code in my work (not necessarily yours, maybe from a guy who understands GPL the right way :) ), then I would have additional potential troubles with AppUp. Apr 17 15:54:54 showing the user that by supporting this version, they are endorsing the original Apr 17 15:55:06 ssvb: ah... you want to sell someone elses code at AppUp.... gotcha Apr 17 15:55:13 lbt: and I don't want these troubles, because GPL explicitly grants me some rights Apr 17 15:55:16 The trouble here is not with AppUp though. It is with the GPL itself, being unsuitable for business Apr 17 15:55:34 Wait, wrong wording. Apr 17 15:55:36 ideally there would also be some way in the app store UI to filter based on this Apr 17 15:55:50 RST38h: OK ... but the GPL is a redistribution license Apr 17 15:55:52 Make it "unsuitable for software business" Apr 17 15:56:08 ssvb: it doesn't give you the rights you think it gives you Apr 17 15:56:14 If I am making a gadget, or selling services, GPL is a godsend to me Apr 17 15:56:23 it does not give you the right to force others to do anything Apr 17 15:56:37 lbt: ever heard about the libraries and code reuse? Apr 17 15:56:48 lbt: you still haven't explained how what you seek is *morally* compatible with the GPL Apr 17 15:56:52 RST38h: honestly... this isn't sw business... it's 1-man apps.... toys Apr 17 15:57:04 ssvb: yes... Apr 17 15:57:14 lbt: As long as you are mamking money selling them,it is business Apr 17 15:57:22 s/mamking/making Apr 17 15:57:28 RST38h: yeah... so's a paper round.... Apr 17 15:57:32 lbt: in the modern world a lot of work is based on the work done by somebody else, people don't reinvent wheels... Apr 17 15:57:40 ssvb: yep Apr 17 15:57:48 lbt: Hey, I am approaching this formally Apr 17 15:58:07 lbt: Besides, lots of people are either making or hoping to make money selling this crap Apr 17 15:58:20 RST38h: yeah..... *giggle* Apr 17 15:58:30 lbt: *exactly* Apr 17 15:58:53 they will make enough for a nice meal every now and again ... if they're lucky Apr 17 15:59:04 as most IOS devs eventually discover Apr 17 15:59:18 a few will make a lot ... sure Apr 17 15:59:20 most won't Apr 17 15:59:39 lbt: Then you should get the point. GPL was invented to promote progress and code reuse Apr 17 15:59:49 this is about recognition, a few $$ here and there for GPL devs to get some beer Apr 17 16:00:05 ssvb: do you seriously think I don't know the GPL very well indeed Apr 17 16:00:20 lbt: That is why app stores suck. Apr 17 16:00:28 I think if people actually cared to make money they wouldn't release their code under gpl in the first place :) Apr 17 16:00:30 i seriously think you understand the technicalities but miss the point of the philosophy Apr 17 16:00:33 RST38h: yep.... Apr 17 16:00:35 lbt: and so does Apple's model, at least for developers Apr 17 16:00:44 alterego: indeed Apr 17 16:00:55 ali12341: nope.... you do Apr 17 16:00:59 no u Apr 17 16:01:00 lbt: yes do, otherwise you would not have started this silly discussion :) Apr 17 16:01:04 lbt: It is a supermarket with all the isles turned sideways to the customer Apr 17 16:01:06 hehe Apr 17 16:01:56 ssvb: and ali12341 I'm still looking for something that contravenes the GPL Apr 17 16:02:03 in my proposal Apr 17 16:02:16 lbt: i've been saying for the past hour or so that i don't care about legality Apr 17 16:02:21 other than your opinion of the philosophy Apr 17 16:02:28 i only care about morality of doing what you propose Apr 17 16:02:29 nb... I'm GPL3 compliant too Apr 17 16:02:44 lbt: philosophically you effectively want to limit redistribution Apr 17 16:02:53 jonnor: no, not really Apr 17 16:03:07 jonnor: it's still on AppUp Apr 17 16:03:14 what? Apr 17 16:03:25 I put it there... it costs $2 Apr 17 16:03:39 ali12341 then wants to copy it and sell it for $1 Apr 17 16:03:41 my app Apr 17 16:03:48 he has GPL rights you know Apr 17 16:03:54 and morality is on his side Apr 17 16:03:55 you granted me that right when you released it GPL Apr 17 16:04:00 and now you want to take it away Apr 17 16:04:01 no, I didn't Apr 17 16:04:06 yes, you effectively restricted his redistrubtion of it Apr 17 16:04:08 I gave you the right to *try* and sell it Apr 17 16:04:31 I restrict his ability to negotiate with my partner Apr 17 16:04:34 and now you want to take away my right to even *try* to sell it, since it won't be for sale Apr 17 16:04:39 you can sell it Apr 17 16:04:48 yes, you effectively restricted his redistrubtion of it by having a party that is not legally obliged to redistribute deny him to redistribute through their channel Apr 17 16:04:49 go down to any market... I won't complain Apr 17 16:04:55 yeah, and Apr 17 16:05:28 that is not restricting his rights Apr 17 16:05:31 yes it is Apr 17 16:05:32 at all Apr 17 16:05:40 no it's not.. they are not "rights" Apr 17 16:05:41 stop oppressing me Apr 17 16:05:46 the customer in this case is AppUp, not the end user Apr 17 16:05:51 they are commercial contracts Apr 17 16:06:04 and AppUp *want* (in my mind) this Apr 17 16:06:14 they *like* to make me happy Apr 17 16:06:23 I write code for their store Apr 17 16:06:29 isn't this a little bit like... a cartel doing price fixing? Apr 17 16:06:38 you piss me offf (not really... in the scenario) Apr 17 16:06:43 heh Apr 17 16:06:43 ali12341: yes Apr 17 16:06:51 it's called "free market" Apr 17 16:07:00 its only a cartel if it controls a significant percentage of the market Apr 17 16:07:02 lbt: and you think that is within the philosophy of the gpl? Apr 17 16:07:03 because AppUp doesn't have a monopoly Apr 17 16:07:17 free market? Apr 17 16:07:23 the GPL is all for competition Apr 17 16:07:31 what if appup would accept any GPL app if it included a contribution breakdown as additional verification? Apr 17 16:07:53 lcuk: I kept clear until the black/white is understood Apr 17 16:07:54 no contribution breakdown, not on the store Apr 17 16:08:05 if we can't agree on an app that is 100% mine... Apr 17 16:08:17 the breakdown there is 100% David Apr 17 16:08:20 no qualms Apr 17 16:08:31 if it's really 100% yours then the solution is simple: instead of setting up an illegal cartel to do price fixing... simply DONT USE GPL Apr 17 16:08:49 lbt, consider it like the signing off process Apr 17 16:08:50 ali12341: hehe.... grow up "illegal cartel"?? :) Apr 17 16:08:52 there is nothing illegal about it Apr 17 16:09:00 i would rather you don't use GPL for such morally questionable enterprises Apr 17 16:09:03 just because you don't like an idea does not make it illegal Apr 17 16:09:24 lcuk: yeah, could do that... but I suspect AppUp will say "not 100%, no $$$" Apr 17 16:09:27 1 person trying to get a fair (small) price for 1 app is not an "illegal cartel" ? Apr 17 16:09:34 that would be a good policy IMHO Apr 17 16:09:49 lbt, but if you include the account names of each participant Apr 17 16:09:51 so, feel free to package VLC - but no you can't sell it Apr 17 16:09:54 two parties colluding to fix prices = a cartel Apr 17 16:10:19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel Apr 17 16:10:39 "competing firms" Apr 17 16:10:41 mmmm pizza with blue cheese Apr 17 16:10:44 ok fair point Apr 17 16:11:02 me and AppUp.... we're "like that" .... ;) Apr 17 16:11:06 seriously.... Apr 17 16:11:14 where "me" == "any GPL dev" Apr 17 16:11:23 not "any GPL rights holder" Apr 17 16:11:40 lbt: You stated before that the copyright holders libraries included/used by an app should also have a say. Why should the appup not ask for "permission" to redistribute app X from every copyright holder all the way down to the kernel? Where is the line drawn? Apr 17 16:11:43 AppUp are not interested in distributing GPL code... Apr 17 16:11:57 jonnor: agreed Apr 17 16:12:04 2 reasons Apr 17 16:12:20 1: AppUp are not shipping anything other than my code Apr 17 16:12:21 the GPL is pretty explicit on what comprises a derived work Apr 17 16:12:27 2: MeeGo is shipping the rest Apr 17 16:13:54 w00t_: I'm very very serious about proposing this to AppUp... do you have an issue with what I'm saying? Apr 17 16:15:23 ali12341: I think we still disagree - but thanks for making me argue. I'm pretty happy that we'd get a little closer in an in-person debate. Apr 17 16:15:27 lbt: not in principle.. my only issue comes to what happens with (active) forks, and so on Apr 17 16:15:43 lbt: hopefully they will reject your proposal, why can't you solve YOUR problem in such a way which does not bother other people? Apr 17 16:15:46 *nod* ... and contributions back to my proj Apr 17 16:16:02 lbt: so as the author of any non-meego library, I will/can be asked to give redistribution permission for any app using that? Apr 17 16:16:10 ssvb: I think you missed something... your args don't make sense Apr 17 16:16:12 ssvb: who is this bothering? Apr 17 16:16:28 jonnor: IMHO... you have to make the objection Apr 17 16:16:46 jonnor: this is a courtesy to prevent leeching Apr 17 16:16:47 lbt: Ok. But I am entitled to? Apr 17 16:16:50 yes Apr 17 16:16:52 w00t_: I'm as a GPL application developer don't want to deal with this crap Apr 17 16:17:03 jonnor: not obliged to Apr 17 16:17:18 ssvb: you don't have to ... in any way Apr 17 16:17:19 ssvb: if you dont deal with it, nobody will bother you Apr 17 16:17:21 ssvb: you aren't obliged to Apr 17 16:17:36 we won't ask you, we'll sell your code... np Apr 17 16:17:53 (and give away the src) Apr 17 16:18:07 and.... he won't mind? Apr 17 16:18:16 This seems like a strange power to give library devs. Especially if the library is licensed LGPL or more liberal, an appliation developer would not expect the library to be able to do such. Apr 17 16:18:17 no, he GPL'ed it Apr 17 16:18:23 exactly Apr 17 16:18:24 we'll take the money, get some nice booze, and toast you in your absence Apr 17 16:18:28 jonnor: it's not a legal power Apr 17 16:18:38 lbt: no, but it is still a power Apr 17 16:18:51 jonnor: feel free to help me refine the policy Apr 17 16:18:56 bear in mind the meego model Apr 17 16:19:03 which is "no libs" Apr 17 16:19:06 jonnor: i don't see how libraries and the platform have anything to do with it. the only thing that matters is what you download from appup in the package Apr 17 16:19:10 (which I hate btw) Apr 17 16:19:41 and I am working my fingers to the bone doing a truly 'free' solution for those of us not buying apps at Dixons Apr 17 16:19:48 as an application devleoper mainly targetting Meego and AppUp, I might find myself in the situation that I wrote 10k lines of code that depend on library X, and then the copyright holder of that lib can suddenly cause me to have to stop redistribution in that channel Apr 17 16:19:58 perhaps because he did not like my face Apr 17 16:20:09 yes Apr 17 16:20:18 if that bothers you... don't use GPL Apr 17 16:20:26 not sure about LGPL Apr 17 16:20:28 no Apr 17 16:20:30 hah Apr 17 16:20:32 this is *policy* Apr 17 16:20:33 jonner: exactly Apr 17 16:20:34 that's completely backwards Apr 17 16:20:43 there is nothing in GPL that would suggest this Apr 17 16:21:00 if you think that a GPL dev will veto your code and that bothers you... Apr 17 16:21:02 it *can* happen, sure, with the setup you have proposed Apr 17 16:21:02 to paraphrase what you just said: "if you are worried about developers preventing you from redistributing code, don't use GPL" Apr 17 16:21:13 so... Apr 17 16:21:23 do you think it's a high risk ? Apr 17 16:21:25 I don't Apr 17 16:21:27 but I do not see any interpretation that says this is an intent of the GPL Apr 17 16:21:33 it's not a high risk... unless you get your way Apr 17 16:21:51 ali12341: so if I used your GPL code you'd veto my app ? Apr 17 16:22:05 lbt: i'd veto your app unless you agreed not to veto my app Apr 17 16:22:10 indeed Apr 17 16:22:14 lbt: result: mutually assured destruction Apr 17 16:22:18 then we get drunk together Apr 17 16:22:24 or that Apr 17 16:22:49 speaking of which, I should unpack my ideapad, jake was asking to play tictactoe on it before Apr 17 16:22:53 I think the solution to this fiery argument can best be summarized: "go by the letter of GPL *or* license under different terms" Apr 17 16:23:07 s/letter/spirit/ Apr 17 16:23:16 forget the spirit, spirit is subjective Apr 17 16:23:20 ali12341: wrong Apr 17 16:23:28 the letter is not though, so obey that Apr 17 16:23:38 i'm not convinced that the idea is against the letetr of the GPL Apr 17 16:23:41 going by the spirit ensure those with better lawyers win :P Apr 17 16:24:21 ali: It is, reread the GPL Apr 17 16:24:30 RST38h: I don't think lbts proposed way is against the letter of the GPL. Key being that the party limiting redistribution (appup) is not obliged to redistribute Apr 17 16:25:19 ali12341: by the letter of GPL you grant the others the same redistribution rights as you have. And if you legally can't grant this right when using AppUp, then you can't use AppUp yourself Apr 17 16:25:21 jonnor: key being that appup is not supposed to give a flying fuck about lbt's attempts at vetoing redistribution Apr 17 16:25:50 RST38h: there is no legal ground for them havint to do that, is there? Apr 17 16:25:52 jonnor: now, it *may*, if lbt asks nicely, but in general case it doesnot have to Apr 17 16:26:07 jonnor: yes, there is no legal ground for the veto Apr 17 16:26:24 how is that against the letter of the GPL? Apr 17 16:26:28 Yes, they are allowed to. Ergo, the letter of the GPL is not enough. Apr 17 16:26:40 exactly Apr 17 16:26:54 jonnor: Once again: the letter of the gPL explicitely ALLOWS them to redistribute, veto or not Apr 17 16:27:11 jonnor: If "GPL is not enough" then lbt should not license under GPL Apr 17 16:27:14 I have not claimed otherwise. Apr 17 16:27:14 right, the veto is between lbt and AppUp Apr 17 16:27:19 right Apr 17 16:27:27 using the contribution breakdown, redistribution would continue and be happy Apr 17 16:27:58 lcuk: no because it also places additional restrictions: "you can only redistribute if you give me x%" Apr 17 16:28:15 lcuk: although it is morally better than lbt's idea :) Apr 17 16:28:18 ali12341, it is their server, they ask for other restrictions anyway Apr 17 16:28:29 you are not granted a right to automatically upload anything Apr 17 16:28:35 I do not think lbt proposed solution is a very good one to encouraging development of free software apps. Apr 17 16:29:02 I think lbt's proposal will discourage leeches Apr 17 16:29:20 sec... fixing LDAP Apr 17 16:29:23 ali12341, the breakdwon would simply give the store owners a viable way to ensure the authors get the designated recognition Apr 17 16:29:26 berndhs: and that there are no better solution to doing that? Apr 17 16:29:28 * RST38h suggests using a community operated repo, Maemo-style, rather than rely on AppUp Apr 17 16:29:31 i think leeches will be discouraged by the fact that leeching will result in the price dropping to zero Apr 17 16:29:46 jonnor: you have a better proposal ? Apr 17 16:29:55 at last Apr 17 16:29:56 berndhs: it will not, the leeches are only going to benefit from some dumb guys using GPL Apr 17 16:29:57 with breakdown, leeches will be discouraged until substantial changes have been made anywayu Apr 17 16:30:01 You get more control over the repo + no need to go through the ugly flash-heavy web site Apr 17 16:30:38 And if someone uploads your stuff to AppUp, well, such is life Apr 17 16:30:41 berndhs: so it's not a problem at all, those who want to make profit will use a different license Apr 17 16:31:08 the fact of the matter is that the veto can and will be used to stiffle real competition Apr 17 16:31:14 ssvb: exactly Apr 17 16:31:19 RST38h: we'll use just the c.obs when you get Dixons signed up Apr 17 16:31:28 ie the case where someone adds valuable functionality Apr 17 16:31:38 I think some of the anti-lbt arguments here are in favour of $0 software for all end users Apr 17 16:31:45 berndhs: Perhaps. 1) Make it clear on apps that are packages and maintained by upstream that they are so. 2) Let the appstore and frontend favor such apps over others Apr 17 16:31:50 berndhs: yep... Apr 17 16:31:52 lbt: not familiar with either of the entities Apr 17 16:32:10 high street store and open app store Apr 17 16:32:26 ali12341, at that point, the contribution breakdown would change and fees obtained would be shared in a balanced way Apr 17 16:32:59 berndhs: no, the anti-lbt arguments are to ensure that open source projects with multiple contributors (and many copyright holders as a result) will not have any troubles getting to AppUp Apr 17 16:33:05 lcuk: not under the veto plan Apr 17 16:33:12 ssvb: why would they? Apr 17 16:33:32 lcuk: under the veto plan, the original author would veto the version with extended functions Apr 17 16:33:47 lbt: what if some of the contributors can't be found to explicitly grant their permission? Apr 17 16:33:54 ali12341: *would*? Apr 17 16:33:56 lcuk: then the original version wouldn't be able to incorporate the extras either, because the author author would veto that Apr 17 16:34:01 ali12341: surely *could* Apr 17 16:34:11 ssvb: did you not listen? Apr 17 16:34:15 no persmission needed Apr 17 16:34:22 ssvb: if they can't be found to grant, they can't be found to veto eitehr Apr 17 16:34:28 lbt: yeah "could" in the sense that politicians "could" be corrupt Apr 17 16:34:38 ie it definitely will happen eventually Apr 17 16:34:48 ali12341: so GPL devs tend to be corrupt? Apr 17 16:34:51 lbt: of course they can show up later, and I don;t want this to happen Apr 17 16:35:04 ssvb: yeah ... like VLC did Apr 17 16:35:28 lbt: humans tend to be corrupt, yeah Apr 17 16:35:32 they have a moral objection to apple/intel shipping their code Apr 17 16:35:33 human nature Apr 17 16:35:46 ali12341: so your problem is that you don't trust GPL devs Apr 17 16:35:51 lbt: yeah Apr 17 16:35:52 again, some poeple here assume only GPL devs are evil, while forkers and copuiers are all nice people Apr 17 16:35:59 lbt: if i trusted them i wouldn't need the GPL Apr 17 16:36:02 and you think they'll stop you using their GPL code Apr 17 16:36:07 hehe Apr 17 16:36:11 no one is evil, nature of power just is Apr 17 16:36:16 lbt: yes, since that's *exactly* what you are doing Apr 17 16:36:18 the devs don't trust you you fool Apr 17 16:36:27 lbt doesn't protect you Apr 17 16:36:32 it protects them from you Apr 17 16:36:36 GPL Apr 17 16:36:38 ROFL Apr 17 16:36:42 i don't think it, you have explicitly stated it to be the case for the whole of this discussion Apr 17 16:37:13 berndhs: what about a random corrupt contributor of some tiny feature years ago? who decided that he wants to have his share of profit (if there is any) or a minute of fame now Apr 17 16:37:13 no, I think if you read the backlog I have a very solid stance Apr 17 16:37:24 GPL protects software from developers Apr 17 16:37:26 ssvb: yes... indeed Apr 17 16:37:33 RMS is very clear on this Apr 17 16:37:55 you are not software (I think) Apr 17 16:37:56 i'm in favour of original authors benefiting form their work Apr 17 16:38:33 i'm not in favour of users having an eternal right to more services from the original authors Apr 17 16:39:35 if a dev is after $$ and distribution control GPL isn't the lisence to use Apr 17 16:39:54 depending on the revenue model Apr 17 16:40:19 if someone uses version 1.2.3 legitimately, under ANY license, they dont have rights to 1.2.4 Apr 17 16:41:33 berndhs: where did anyone say anything to the contrary? :p Apr 17 16:41:54 (i'm admittedly not following the discussion too closely) Apr 17 16:42:14 w00t_: basically the arguments "what if the dev changes their mind" imply that the dev has to keep giving thigns away Apr 17 16:42:40 berndhs: what if they change their mind about 1.2.3? Apr 17 16:42:50 they can't Apr 17 16:42:50 Again: would like an option to change your mind => do not use GPL Apr 17 16:42:55 berndhs: under the veto model they can have all 1.2.3 using software removed from appup Apr 17 16:43:03 And this is both in GPL spirit and letter Apr 17 16:43:14 no, just copies provided by others Apr 17 16:43:25 RST38h: nothing prevents relicensing away from GPL, assuming you hold all copyright or gain permission from all copyright holders Apr 17 16:43:29 berndhs: yes, and they can obviously choose to remove their own copy Apr 17 16:43:34 this is about an App store, not a Lib store Apr 17 16:43:36 so, GPL doesn't stop you changing your mind Apr 17 16:43:53 they can stop selling their app yes Apr 17 16:44:04 or stop giving it away on that one store Apr 17 16:44:04 w00t_: it doesn't make the old copy no longer GPL Apr 17 16:44:09 ali12341: correct Apr 17 16:44:15 (the same is true of any other license) Apr 17 16:44:26 anyone can still get the app through other channels Apr 17 16:44:34 berndhs: "on that one store" soon turns into "on all app stores" Apr 17 16:45:01 and if someone decides to stop giving their stuff away, why is that wrong ? Apr 17 16:45:19 berndhs: because the GPL explicitly states that others may continue to do so Apr 17 16:45:30 berndhs: and the veto explicitly takes away that right from others Apr 17 16:45:39 if you give away now or sell for $3, that doesnt give me a right to get it for the same conditions tomorrow Apr 17 16:45:55 the veto is for that one store Apr 17 16:46:11 berndhs: that one store may be the only way to obtain the software on certain devices Apr 17 16:46:17 why does the store have an obligation to let me sell a copy of your app ? Apr 17 16:46:27 they buy other devices Apr 17 16:46:33 s/they/then/ Apr 17 16:46:34 berndhs: it has a moral obligation, but not a legal one Apr 17 16:46:38 ali12341: "that veto" is like saying that I *must* sell your stuff in my yard-sale Apr 17 16:46:44 berndhs: more of the "then don't use it" argument Apr 17 16:47:12 (objecting to) Apr 17 16:47:22 what has not been explained is why they have a moral obligation to honour the wishes of developers who used GPL? Apr 17 16:47:22 ali12341: right, same as the "dont user GPL" argument Apr 17 16:47:27 BTW... is OBS OK now people? Apr 17 16:47:40 * timoph checks Apr 17 16:47:45 they have no obligation to carry *any* software in their appstore Apr 17 16:47:51 no I can't login Apr 17 16:48:13 lbt: i can log in now Apr 17 16:48:13 lbt: yep. works for me Apr 17 16:48:28 vasvlad_: try again... I'll watch Apr 17 16:48:41 and me too Apr 17 16:48:43 that worked Apr 17 16:48:44 good Apr 17 16:48:45 fine Apr 17 16:48:49 :) Apr 17 16:49:49 excellent, I can now proceed with work so Ali can copy it and make $3 :P Apr 17 16:51:09 berndhs: you can! :D Apr 17 16:51:11 := Apr 17 16:51:21 it's his moral right! Apr 17 16:51:32 it certainly is :) Apr 17 16:51:45 not if we conspire against you ;) Apr 17 16:51:51 well yes Apr 17 16:52:58 So, I think I need to think about both LGPL and GPL libs and multi-author apps Apr 17 16:53:24 (17:44:51) berndhs: they buy other devices <- this isn't the same as the "don't use GPL" argument Apr 17 16:53:25 also some sense of 'significant contribution' Apr 17 16:53:45 because a GPL violation is a GPL violation regardless of if i buy it or not Apr 17 16:53:58 otoh, if you don't use GPL in the first place, there can be no violation Apr 17 16:54:06 it is the same argument, in the sense of not being forced into the deal Apr 17 16:54:21 it's not the same argument at all Apr 17 16:54:32 and lets face it, none of the end users need any of these apps Apr 17 16:54:55 these are phones and tablets, 95% of it is entertainment Apr 17 16:55:05 so that makes it OK? Apr 17 16:55:28 it makes it OK to say end-users dont need it for a certain price Apr 17 16:55:42 they are not actually any worse off without it Apr 17 16:56:29 the argument you are making is that it's fine to violate the GPL as long as you only distribute to people who don't care about the GPL Apr 17 16:56:41 no, there is no GPL violation Apr 17 16:56:56 so i've got an idea, let's just make the appup store have a click thru agreement "you agree not to hold any developers to the GPL" Apr 17 16:56:59 only a deal between developers and a distributor Apr 17 16:57:20 that way the developer isn't violating the GPL because they don't impose that condition Apr 17 16:57:33 all the source code will be published, and anyone can use it as they see fit Apr 17 16:57:36 appup does Apr 17 16:57:57 they jsut can't install the executable through appup Apr 17 16:58:03 except they can't because the appup terms are discriminatory Apr 17 16:58:33 yes the appup terms discrimintate against plagiarists and thieves :) Apr 17 16:58:41 how terrible Apr 17 16:58:49 *g* Apr 17 16:58:54 if you think that rights holders under the GPL are "plagiarists and thieves" then you have no business using GPL at all Apr 17 16:59:16 that is backwards Apr 17 16:59:36 users are granted privileges by the GPL Apr 17 16:59:40 if you have no business using the GPl then you think rights holders under the GPL are plagiarists and thieves? Apr 17 17:00:07 people who copy and resell in direct competition to the original author are plagiarists yes Apr 17 17:00:19 pretending that it is their work Apr 17 17:00:28 well no Apr 17 17:00:36 yes they are Apr 17 17:00:39 because nobody said they would remove the original credits Apr 17 17:00:54 as if anybody looks at the credits Apr 17 17:01:26 Bob will say "this is Alices program, buy it from Alice for $5 or from me for $3" ?? Apr 17 17:01:32 yes Apr 17 17:01:59 no, Bob will say " this does waht Alices does" Apr 17 17:02:05 i suppose you think centos project is nothing but plagiarists and thieves? Apr 17 17:02:20 you are assuming those who copy are honest, and those who create are evil Apr 17 17:02:28 that is backwards Apr 17 17:02:34 no, i am assuming that those who seek to take away rights are evil Apr 17 17:02:40 and everyone else is simply neutral Apr 17 17:02:46 ali: No, no Apr 17 17:02:49 those who give away rights you mean Apr 17 17:03:03 are any instllation images available for nonsse3 cpu's ? Apr 17 17:03:07 ali: They are brainless, no-good plagiarists and thieves! Apr 17 17:03:09 berndhs: those who give away rights, and then try to go back on the deal, rather than simply not giving away those rights in the first palce Apr 17 17:03:29 nobody is proposing going back on the deal Apr 17 17:03:47 just limiting through 1 specific distribution channel Apr 17 17:04:02 and what about the other channels? Apr 17 17:04:11 berndhs: the only reason it's "1 specific channel" is because it's the only channel that exists today Apr 17 17:04:13 will you have private discussions with each, making them allow you a veto? Apr 17 17:04:15 berndhs: so it has a limited scope. They are still going back on the deal in that scope Apr 17 17:04:27 AppIp doesnt exist today, there are no divices Apr 17 17:04:30 ali: You mean, you can no longer install from a repo, using zypper or something? Apr 17 17:04:45 berndhs <--- goood spotter! Apr 17 17:04:59 AppUp cannot prevent anyone from setting up their own repo Apr 17 17:04:59 berndhs: and neither does the proposed veto :) Apr 17 17:05:01 RST38h: there is no guarantee that will be possible on a end-user Meego device Apr 17 17:05:03 Makes me wonder why nobody else has noticed it so far Apr 17 17:05:32 well, officially or enabled-by-default repos at least Apr 17 17:05:36 piggz: ... I guess you don't mean ARM ;) Apr 17 17:06:46 * RST38h wants a special license that will let him distribute to a limited number of people he personally likes, with no redistribution and will also allow to withdraw the app if he stops liking the person =) Apr 17 17:07:09 :) Apr 17 17:07:10 RST38h: that's a valid license ... feel free... not OSI though... mine is Apr 17 17:07:11 Wait, doesn't it sound like a blog for apps? =) Apr 17 17:07:42 bbl8r Apr 17 17:07:47 o/ Apr 17 17:07:51 RST38h: sounds like software-as-a-service Apr 17 17:07:51 g'night lbt Apr 17 17:08:04 berndhs: true Apr 17 17:08:11 lbt_away: no, i'd like ot run meego on me wifes celeron laptop Apr 17 17:36:57 piggz: currently there's no generic x86 port of MeeGo - we would all like to see it ... but it's all about time Apr 17 17:37:34 lbt: gonna give opensuse smeegol a whirl Apr 17 17:39:01 piggz: is there a recent release of that ? Apr 17 17:39:22 berndhs: feb this year Apr 17 17:39:56 berndhs: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Meego:/Netbook/images/iso/ is what i found Apr 17 17:40:07 ah thanks Apr 17 20:39:44 Hi! Has anybody tried to install KDE on an Intel, exopc hardware ? Apr 17 20:46:51 * andre__ wonders how this is a MeeGo question Apr 17 20:47:36 there is a meego running on that and this gadget was distributed yesterday at the meego summit. Apr 17 20:52:02 maybe he wants to put kde on meego :) Apr 17 20:52:26 yup. Apr 17 20:54:10 why ? Apr 17 20:55:34 because I like KDE. Apr 17 20:55:37 why not? Apr 17 20:56:50 but then why on meego ? run something else on the exopc Apr 17 20:57:01 what is an exopc? Apr 17 20:57:26 last I checked the UX layer wasn't a part of MeeGo compliance so AFAIK MeeGo with KDE would be compliant Apr 17 20:57:52 Venemo: it's a tablet Apr 17 20:58:04 it's a freebie Apr 17 20:58:07 isnt it the same hardware as WeTab ? Apr 17 20:58:09 that too :) Apr 17 20:58:46 berndhs: nope. Apr 17 20:59:10 i thought I read that on a mailing list some time ago Apr 17 20:59:25 yeah, very very similar, but not the same :) Apr 17 20:59:48 what different ? they painted some buttons pink ? Apr 17 21:00:07 american/canadian brand vs. european brand Apr 17 21:01:02 mhm Apr 17 21:02:28 thiago: you were running KDE trunk some time ago on some meego. Which hardware was it, if I can ask ? Apr 17 21:07:19 djszapi: search here for KDE and ask them https://build.pub.meego.com/search/search Apr 17 21:07:19 so the exopc ... Apr 17 21:07:30 djszapi: then tell us :) Apr 17 21:07:31 no zypper repos on mine Apr 17 21:07:58 berndhs: sure I do not have converter yet, that is why I could not try it out, but I purchase one tomorrow :-) Apr 17 21:08:02 http://wiki.meego.com/Devices points to http://wiki.meego.com/Installing_MeeGo_and_Handset_Images_on_ExoPC which looks out of date Apr 17 21:08:44 lbt: you can't get the repos there manually ? Apr 17 21:09:26 zypper ref : Repository 'core' is invalid. Apr 17 21:09:46 I can ssh into it ... it's setup to use baseurl=http://download.meego.com/trunk-daily/builds/trunk/1.1.90.2.20110209.4/oss/repos/ia32/packages/ Apr 17 21:09:57 which is 404 Apr 17 21:10:04 schweet Apr 17 22:03:15 mmm why is /usr/local 770 in meego ... Apr 17 22:03:56 it is ? Apr 17 22:04:05 on my exopc... yes Apr 17 22:04:13 could be due to QtCreator Apr 17 22:04:33 not on my netbook install, its 755 I think Apr 17 22:04:44 rwx r-x r-x Apr 17 22:05:31 what group is it ? Apr 17 22:06:19 root:root Apr 17 22:06:57 woo... I have the QtCreator app runnin on the Exo :) Apr 17 22:08:27 Cool, do you have osc? :) Apr 17 22:09:18 alterego: nah, following the tutorial first Apr 17 22:09:30 berndhs: looks like it's Qt Creator doing it Apr 17 22:10:19 that's strange Apr 17 22:11:02 yeah... Apr 17 22:11:09 maybe the packaging is dodgy Apr 17 22:11:54 well, Nokia packaging is uhm, unique Apr 17 22:12:38 *g* Apr 17 22:13:29 where's the spec in QtC Apr 17 22:18:23 lbt: I did not get the idea yesterday how you thought the help about packaging and our project, gluon. I thought what we can do is to put into the community OBS and that is already done. Apr 17 22:19:44 I might have missed something tho. :) Apr 17 22:23:42 rofl...now /usr/bin is 770 Apr 17 22:24:03 that's not going to work Apr 17 22:24:14 not for long anyway Apr 17 22:24:27 it's using my personal umask (which affects make and hence the make install) Apr 17 22:24:47 * lbt looks for thiago Apr 17 22:26:05 djszapi: how do gluon games get into the app store Apr 17 22:26:13 the MeeGo.com one Apr 17 22:26:20 berndhs: what's not ? Apr 17 22:26:27 djszapi: ideapad Apr 17 22:26:29 770 /usr/bin? no... Apr 17 22:26:33 right Apr 17 22:26:41 lbt: ohh the games, yes, that might be a good idea if we have games, thanks :) Apr 17 22:27:09 thiago: thanks for you, too. I hope I can manage KDE tomorrow on my exopc+meego :p Apr 17 22:33:16 berndhs: drwxrwx--- 1 root root 17254 Apr 17 21:23 /usr/bin Apr 17 22:33:29 $ sudo chmod 755 /usr/bin/ Apr 17 22:33:35 -bash: /usr/bin/sudo: Permission denied Apr 17 22:33:38 :D Apr 17 22:33:48 just run everything as root and you'll be ok Apr 17 22:34:07 what kind of OS does that! Apr 17 22:34:15 oh, wait Apr 17 22:34:43 sounds like sudo has the wrong permissions itself Apr 17 22:34:51 CosmoHill: yep... Apr 17 22:35:05 QtCreator made /usr/bin not-readable by users... Apr 17 22:35:13 really? Apr 17 22:35:16 really Apr 17 22:35:29 su is in /bin, run it while you still can :) Apr 17 22:35:42 I had a root shell open Apr 17 22:35:57 but, you know... that's not really polite Apr 17 22:36:07 (of QtC I mean) Apr 17 22:36:12 anyhow... Apr 17 23:57:45 aaaaahhhh Apr 17 23:57:57 I have 16 hours to hand in this assignment Apr 18 00:02:42 and you're worried already ? Apr 18 00:10:17 I'm only worried cos I was a first class degres Apr 18 00:11:17 i'm not sure what that is :) Apr 18 00:11:37 a degree from a universityt Apr 18 00:12:10 yeah I have some of those, but worrying isn't part of it Apr 18 00:21:59 wait, some? plural? Apr 18 00:24:17 3 in the same field, consecutive :) Apr 18 00:25:56 any of them SQL related? Apr 18 00:26:10 uhm, not really Apr 18 00:27:10 hi i have a question Apr 18 00:27:34 absolutely disturbing behavior is happening to my meego on lenovo touch netbook and cant seem to find solution Apr 18 00:27:37 yes, you should consider upgrading to Windows 7 Apr 18 00:27:47 all keyboard input = shut down Apr 18 00:28:41 pack it up, ship it to me, and I'll figure it out Apr 18 00:30:11 keyboard and touch settings are fine and idk why this is behaving all of sudden Apr 18 00:46:49 * CosmoHill swears a lot as he find out 10% of his assignment is just not there Apr 18 00:50:11 what's virtual keyboard? Apr 18 00:50:43 touch screen keyboard for tablets Apr 18 00:50:56 so if i install it then i could temporarily type Apr 18 00:50:59 i assume Apr 18 00:52:23 i haven't been successfully use the clipboard, it keep freezing and not paste properly Apr 18 00:58:00 anyways thanks Apr 18 01:15:58 yay I think it's done :) Apr 18 01:18:26 see, more than 14 hours left Apr 18 01:19:03 my view and index are a load of poopoo on a stick Apr 18 01:19:16 but at least I have something Apr 18 01:19:29 i'm sure the content is brilliant Apr 18 01:20:12 good thing the printer ran out of paper cos it was still on the crappy draft settings Apr 18 01:20:29 yeah saved some trees too Apr 18 01:21:02 * CosmoHill watches is current thing spool Apr 18 01:21:12 kinda impressed that I have everything in one word doc Apr 18 01:21:25 however the current print job is 161MB :/ Apr 18 01:21:49 on the other hand, you've seen on tree, you've seen them all Apr 18 01:23:40 I should have a read of my assignment in the morning Apr 18 01:24:05 the worse thing that could happen is I end up with the feeling of "I could have done better" Apr 18 01:24:25 have a few beers, you won't care Apr 18 01:24:35 it's 2:22am Apr 18 01:24:40 bed sounds good Apr 18 01:24:55 its an alternative :) Apr 18 01:24:56 speaking of good sounds Apr 18 01:25:01 * CosmoHill puts his headphones back on Apr 18 01:25:28 kinda worried that I've managed to empty my printer tray once this month already Apr 18 01:27:29 there will be more trees, with all the extra CO2 they grow faster Apr 18 01:28:10 I bought a 4500 sheet box sometime in my first year Apr 18 01:38:05 oh shit, forgot a bit of code in my report Apr 18 01:40:48 lots of time left Apr 18 01:45:25 right that will do Apr 18 01:45:52 printer is connected to my server so I can turn stuff off and leave it be **** ENDING LOGGING AT Mon Apr 18 02:59:57 2011