=== mc44_ is now known as mc44 [01:06] arggg [01:06] * LaserJock kicks Firefox [01:10] * LaserJock tries to find a less sucky browser [01:11] hello LaserJock :) [01:11] hola andrew [01:11] keescook: ping [01:12] LaserJock: Until ff-3 got native gtk form widgets, I was using Epiphany. That works well. [01:12] w3m [01:13] "N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu team" [01:14] ^^ seems a little harsh for Universe [01:14] unsupported by canonical, at least [01:14] exactly [01:14] it seems right on, actually. It certainly doesn't "give the wrong impression" for best-effort community support. [01:15] I didn't know Canonical == Ubuntu team [01:15] there's an equality proof somewhere. [01:15] crimsun: but it's *is* supported by the community [01:16] that statement makes it sound like they're be no sense in filing a bug for a Universe package [01:16] and in fact it would be discouraged because it's unsupported software [01:16] or am I reading too much into "ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED" [01:17] within universe there are different levels of community support as well [01:18] sure [01:18] but imperfect support is far from no support, IMO anyway [01:18] agreed [01:19] it certainly conveys the impression that people shouldn't expect fixes, at least [01:19] I suppose it's a question of not misleading users into thinking they'll get more support than they will [01:19] it probably does go too far in that direction [01:20] I guess I better not get on a "demotivating" kick again [01:21] but seriously, calling Universe entirely unsupported by the Ubuntu team seems a bit much [01:24] LaserJock: I think there is a legal issue here too === chuck_ is now known as zul [01:24] I can imagine some jurisdictions equating support with liability. [01:25] and as there is no guarantee of even a trivial fix for universe in the event of a problem [01:25] ok, so why should there be a Main/Universe separation there? [01:26] so Canonical's taking on legal liability for Main? [01:26] thats not what I'm saying [01:27] and in fact not even implied. Take security fixes for instance. [01:27] there are security fixes for Main. [01:27] If you have something in main, and there is a known vuln with it, that will get into -security quite rapidly. [01:28] well, there is a larger chance anyway [01:31] seems like a "Universe is community supported" would suffice [01:31] are there legal ramifications to that statement? [01:32] IANAL [01:33] of course, nobody ever is [01:34] Except for *lawyers*, of which I'd imagine Canonical has access to a few. [01:35] seems like a perfectly harmless statement [01:40] "community supported" is a meaningful phrase if you're familiar with the Ubuntu development structure [01:40] but perhaps not if you're not [01:41] maybe less [01:41] but I think it's still fairly understandable [01:45] I think a true statement understood by some is better than a misleading statement understood by all. [01:47] that likely depends on the nature of the misunderstanding in the first case :) [01:52] it could explicitly say that it is not supported by Canonical [01:55] why does ubuntu publish what canonical does and doesn't support? [01:55] probably more for canonical customers [01:55] i realize the two are highly intertwined in some fashion [01:56] that has been defined since day 1, pwnguin [01:56] and on day 366 the Ubuntu Foundation was created (dont quote me on that day) [01:56] because, not shockingly, customers and potential customers like more information, not less [01:56] the foundation does not do anything [01:58] at least from my point of view, it seems like Canonical has ownership / responsibility of main, but every time someone suggests it, people point out all the non-Canonical people in Core Dev [01:59] which, i should point out, im fine with. [01:59] both are right [01:59] basically, there are non-Canonical people who can commit to Main and Restricted [01:59] but for security patches, that is the job of canonical [02:00] and they have said, for very sane reasons, that they are only goint o support main and restricted [02:00] Canonical take responsibility for main, whoever puts stuff in there === RAOF_ is now known as RAOF [02:00] i figured the ubuntu foundation was taking responsibility for that once it was created, but i guess not [02:01] The Ubuntu Foundation exists to take responsibility for Ubuntu should Canonical stop doing so [02:01] the foundation is currently just a storehouse of money in case anything happens to Canonical [02:01] so the UF is basicaly a 10 million dollar insurance policy ;) [02:01] don't you love Mark? [02:01] heh [02:02] in all seriousness, the foundation was setup because at the time, people were questioning whether this was all just a flash in the pan or not [02:03] at the time, i thought the foundation was an effort to seperate canonical legally from ubuntu somewhat [02:04] nope [02:04] i suppose it does seperate their fates somewhat [02:13] so if Canonical goes under do the copyrights go to the foundation? [02:14] LaserJock: yes, that's the plan/point of the foundation [02:15] ah, I see [02:15] makes sense [02:15] plans are like wills [02:15] well, i guess this plan is like a will [02:16] except wills are legal [02:17] I honestly have no idea as the actual legal stuff in place [02:17] only if they're written down somewhere [02:17] although as a member of the CC, I guess I should [02:17] which was sorta my point. wills are a great idea everyone figures they'll do later after everything important's done =/ [02:18] pwnguin: Canonical's not a VC, we're not going to suddenly run out of money [02:18] right [02:18] you havent contradicted anything ive said. i doubt canonical is in any large danger of dying, unless sabdfl suffers a massive paternity suit [02:19] the only danger of the foundation not happening is the hypothetical of Canonical going evil, and I doubt even the strictest legal stuff could realistically be safe from that (and allow Canonical to function even in non-evil mode) [02:19] the thing a contract outright would do is save on legal costs [02:20] instead of having to prove that Ubunutu community / foundation has a right to the copyrights etc [02:20] actually, that's not even true. I'm not expressing myself well at all, as it's way too late [02:20] pwnguin: copyrights are largely irrelevant? Ubuntu is all free software [02:20] yeah, I wondered what the heck you were doing up at this hour :-) [02:20] if the license is truly free, it doesn't matter if the copyright is assigned to Canonical or Billy Bob [02:21] elmo: in a worst case scenario, i imagine the name and logo alone would divide the community [02:21] elmo: I just wondered as I guess technically I've signed over copyrights to Canonical before so I wondered [02:22] pwnguin: so, that's trademark - a very different thing from copyright. and ubuntu, IMO, is more than it's logo/name. i.e. if it had to be changed, it'd hardly be the end of the world [02:22] elmo: hence the etc [02:22] LaserJock: sure, it's a reasonable question. the UF stuff isn't as clear as I'd like [02:23] elmo: at any rate, unlike a will, canonical's death is not inevitable [02:23] pwnguin: right [02:24] * pwnguin wonders what that 10 million does right now [02:26] a guy from ibiblio stopped by today to talk to the uni's library. they have a fairly unique situation [02:27] elmo: Well. Mark's pockets only go /so/ deep [02:28] actually, im thinking of the internet archive [02:29] mjg59: well, sure. but it would take something pretty dramatic (massive lawsuits?) to stop Canonical, rather than VC people going 'hmm, this isn't making us money fast enough', I guess is my point [02:30] slangasek: Thanks (re: ScottK: 76983 release-noted) [02:30] Oh, yeah [02:34] LaserJock: You can't technically sign over a copyright (at least not in the US). It requires an explicit transfer (which is why, among other things SCO-Novell was a slam dunk for Novell). [02:35] hmm [02:36] whats the difference between an explicit transfer and "signing over" copyright? [02:36] so what am I doing when I make packages and say Copyright Canonical Ltd. ? [02:36] LaserJock: is it a work for hire? [02:36] LaserJock: Well that would be an explicit transfer I suppose, but why are you doing that? [02:37] pwnguin: Nothing really, just that it can't be implicit. [02:38] As an example, the core of SCO's case against Novell was something like "Everyone knew the copyrights transferred even though it doesn't say that in the contract." That can't work. [02:38] * ScottK spends too much time reading Groklaw. [02:39] was that in question here? [02:40] No. Probably not. [02:40] "technically I've signed over copyrights" is what i was keying on. Sounded implicit to me. [02:41] pwnguin: no it wasn't work for hire [02:42] LaserJock: what exactly did you turn copyright over for then? [02:42] ScottK: cause everbody else was, I didn't want to be the odd man out ;-) [02:42] ah, heh [02:42] Really. The only people I've seen to that are Canonical employees who are doing it for hire. For them it would be wrong not to. [02:43] well, i donno about wrong [02:43] canonical can certainly ASK them to [02:43] and condition payment upon it [02:43] It varies by jurisdiction. [02:44] in any case, I saw enough of it that I just assumed that that was the status quo [02:44] In the US (which is what I'm most familiar with, but not where most Canonical employees are), a work made for hire automatically belongs to whoever pays. [02:44] Which is a perfectly reasonable reason to be doing it. [02:45] forgive me for not using names in this example, but i dont know the core devel activities well [02:45] but if the ubuntu gcc maintainer hired by canonical makes a patch to gcc, he'd need permission from canonical to submit upstream? [02:46] depends on canonical policies [02:46] their policies may indeed be lax enough so he/she doesn't haveto [02:46] pwnguin: If carried out on work time in most jurisdictions, yes [02:46] fun [02:47] But it's perfectly possible for there to be an implicit agreement that it's not an issue [02:47] And, of course, if it's a derived work of a GPLed product then if you ever distribute it the entire source has to be under the GPL [02:47] now wait a minute. ScottK just suggested implicit assignment wasn't allowed [02:47] At which point anyone can do what they want [02:47] pwnguin: That isn't implicit assignment [02:47] the point here is that the FSF requires you to hand over copyright [02:47] if they are to accept your work [02:47] only if you distribute it [02:48] no [02:48] only if you want them to take it [02:48] That's because they have different policies to everyone else [02:49] yeah, I always thought that was kinda creepy [02:50] there's some definite advantages to copyright assignment [02:50] Gives them a way to make sure something uses GPL v3. [02:50] yeah [02:50] I understand their reasoning, it's just still a bit creepy [02:50] Gives them the right to start lawsuits if someone infringes [02:50] whether you like it or not =/ [02:50] They aren't the only ones that do it. [02:50] It's their project - it's their policy [02:50] do you need everyone's permission to start a suit? [02:50] No [02:50] mjg59: As long as they have some copyright code that's all that matters, it doesn't need to be all. [02:51] It does make it easier for them to settle. [02:51] If they infringe the whole of gcc, fine [02:51] pwnguin: but the judge can dismiss a lawsuit you start as 'without standing' if you don't own majority of the code [02:51] If they only take part of it, it's harder [02:51] Unless you have copyright assignment [02:52] Agreed. [02:52] Red Hat does the same for Cygwin (requires assignment). [02:52] In that case it's so they can dual license it and make money with it. [02:53] how's that work? [02:53] Yes, that's the reason Sun do it for Openoffice [02:53] LaserJock: If you own the copyright, you can sublicense under any terms you want [02:53] LaserJock: they own the copyright. it's their property now [02:54] yeah, but how do they make money on a dual-license [02:54] one license is GPL. the other is "pay us and you dont have to publish source" [02:54] ahh [02:55] Yep. [02:56] i hear reiser works in a similar manner [02:56] is that the same with QT? [02:56] i think so [02:57] "pay us and we'll give you the version of the fs that doesn't eat data muhahaha" [02:57] heh [02:57] pwnguin: copyright can be granted without diminishing ones own rights. [02:57] pwnguin: so no, its not their property now. [02:58] this conflicts with my understanding of property [02:58] clearly you consider copyright property; its not. [02:58] it's the right to copy? :-) [02:59] its a mistake to think of abstractions like patents and copyright as forms of 'property', unlike property they can be shared without diminishing in value. [02:59] somehow i think its a mistake to use economic abstractions about constructs of law [03:00] lifeless: but "copyright can be granted without diminishing one's own rights" doesn't follow either, copyright is the right of exclusive control to decide who can make copies [03:00] s/copyright/licenses to copy/, and ok [03:00] slangasek: hmm, not quite right there AIUI. I can assign copyright on something i created to you; wherein you gain and I lose the right to decide. [03:01] slangasek: but I can alternatively decide to share that control with you [03:01] where you can say 'X can copy' and I can say 'Y can copy' [03:01] i imagine the courts hate that [03:01] pwnguin: well, the government grants the root monopoly [03:01] Just to complicate things, some countries have moral rights of authorship that cannot be sold transferred or anything. [03:01] i vaguely recall Elite having something similar to that [03:02] ScottK: I have vague memories of the Berne convention being involved in that [03:03] * ScottK has vague memories of it being French and common in countries with Napoleonic law systems. [03:03] The extent of moral rights differs between states [03:03] It doesn't exist at all in the US. I do know that. [03:03] In the UK, it's limited to asserting the right to be identified as the author [03:03] In France, it includes not allowing the work to be used in ways you don't approve of [03:04] anyhow the primary point is that unlike physical goods while copyright *can* be treated as a fungible good, its got wider transactions available to its owners than any physical media [03:04] The interaction between this and the GPL has not been tesetd [03:04] is there any reason to treat copyright as a sharable good? [03:05] Yes. It's hard to make money off it otherwise. [03:06] not the copies [03:06] the idea of sharing 100 percent of the right to copy with another entity, without losing the right yourself [03:06] by sharable good, you mean e.g. 'like a physical book' ? [03:06] pwnguin: Yes. It's hard to make money otherwise. [03:07] Well, permiting only exclusive assignments would still work there [03:07] we use the shared assignment in bzr [03:07] But the opportunity to let someone else make money off your copyrighted goods is a fundamental aspect of the traditional mechanism of making money off copyrighted goods [03:08] Canonical as the sponsoring organisation wants copyright on the code in bzr, so that we can manage the licence effectively over time. But we have no wish or need to remove the copyright from the author. [03:09] this lowers the barrier to getting authors to assign copyright - they lose nothing compared to a hand-it-all-over scenario [03:10] the code that makes bzr run, or code in bzr repos? [03:10] uh [03:10] what do you think? [03:11] well, i wasnt aware that canonical was involved with bzr development at all until recently [03:11] what i think is probably not important or correct [03:11] the code of bzr itself [03:11] what people version with bzr is none of our business ;) [03:12] well, launchpad hosts bzr repos [03:13] it could have been some wierd requirement; look at the ppas [03:13] lifeless: can the code author "back out" of assignment [03:13] ? [03:13] LaserJock: revoke a transfer, or abandon it? [03:13] well, can they at any time say they don't want to share anymore [03:14] pwnguin: err, what's weird about the PPA requirements? [03:14] pwnguin: ppas? What do they need ? [03:14] elmo: last i knew [03:14] i had to indemnify canonical [03:14] from what I can tell, the PPA terms of service are just a fairly standard CYA template [03:15] They are not unusual, but they aren't very community friendly IMO. [03:15] According to the status on the bug I filed about it, it's being revised somehow. [03:16] We'll see. [03:16] pwnguin: launchpad requires open source for *the repo's it hosts*. [03:16] like multiverse ;) [03:16] pwnguin: which is nothing to do with your using bzr onyour own project or your own site [03:16] i know what you mean [03:17] JOOI, do other 'community' sites have not have similar terms? [03:17] SF, savannah, novell's forge, whatever [03:17] google's is pretty lenient [03:17] but i better double check [03:18] ORLY [03:18] http://code.google.com/tos.html [03:19] thank you for finding that [03:21] it doesn't matter to me much. im quite enjoying my ppa, patent infrigment indeminifcation be damned [03:23] i just recalled scottk thinking the ppa terms were outrageous. perhaps it is scottK who is outrageous! [03:23] pwnguin: It may be the latter. [03:23] I think they aren't unusual, but unfortunate and not very community oriented. I'd have hoped for better from Canonical. [03:25] ScottK: what's your definition of 'community oriented'? [03:26] "lacking in fiduciary oversight" ;) [03:26] elmo: In this case, I'd like to feel that if I did nothing wrong, but got sued anyway it'd be Canonical and me versus the idiot that sued. Bt the TOS, it'd be me and Canonical being sued and Canonical looking for me to pay their lawyer bills even if I'd done nothing to violat the PPA Terms of Service. [03:27] I think it's perfectly fine to ask for indemnification if someone uploads something that's not legally distributable. [03:28] What bothers me is I can do everything legal and correct, violate no terms of service, and yet Canonical wants me to pay their lawyers. === _Apex is now known as Apex [03:28] if Canonical gets sued for distributing something of yours? [03:29] Right. [03:30] They chose to offer this service, so I think sharing of risk for use within the terms of service is reasonable. [03:30] well [03:30] If I upload something that's not legal to distribute, that's totally different. [03:30] You talk about legal-to-distribute [03:31] but the whole point of a court case would be about proving something is/isn't legal to distribute. [03:31] Sure. [03:31] So IMO it'd be quite reasonable to say as long as we win, you don't have to pay. [03:32] In some obscure juridications (like the US) it's very hard to collect legal fees even if you win. [03:32] so [03:32] say I'm a malicious person [03:33] I could upload a bunch of stuff that you would say is illegal to distribute [03:33] trigger a bunch of lawsuites [03:33] who pays from the start of the lawsuit through to the conclusion where I'm shown to be at fault? [03:34] I'd say we each pay and then at the end where we lose, Canonical hands me a huge bill. [03:34] which you, as a malicious person, don't pay. Probably can't - it might be millions. [03:35] I'd imagine that'd be the situation now too. [03:35] e.g. upload several thousand copies of windows === Whoopie_ is now known as Whoopie [03:36] If I were Canonical, I'd take them down when notified and since Canonical doesn't pre-scren the uploads, that'd probaby be enough to cover them. [03:36] It's just like You Tube and copyrighted videos. As long as they take them down when notified, they're clean. [03:36] well, thats enough IANAL speculation for me today; I have bugs to fix. [03:37] Oh, yeah. Me too. [03:54] cjwatson, Riddell, pitti, Hobbsee, slangasek, tfheen: It would be nice if one of you would volunteer to do the offical release announcement in #ubuntu-release-party when the time comes. You can let us know if you'd be willing to do so in #ubuntu-ops and make appropriate arrangements. [04:00] tonyyarusso: I get dizzy just looking in there. [04:00] tonyyarusso: just set it to +m for an hour or two, they seem noisy enough [04:00] ajmitch: We'll do that when the time comes. [04:00] ScottK: yeah, well. Try moderating it ;) [04:01] tonyyarusso: No way. I gave up on the user channels a long time ago. To much for me. [04:01] hehe [04:02] tonyyarusso: just play with their minds for awhiel :) [04:02] teehee [04:02] they're already anxious about the state of ubuntu.com [04:12] note to self: don't power off the machine during a dist-upgrade. [04:14] You aren't the only one. I recall fixing one bug that I'm pretty sure a mid dist-upgrade reboot/power off is the only way it could have happened. [04:14] Good morning Hobbsee. [04:14] not without a live CD handy [04:14] and intimate knowledge of chroot [04:15] thats about all i learned from gentoo [04:15] how to effectively use chroot [04:16] Hobbsee: there are more fun ways to wreck a system [04:17] ajmitch: uploading broken dpkg updates? [04:17] now that gets exciting [04:17] though it can still be worked around [04:17] Sigkilliing dpkg is always good. [04:18] another favorite daredevil trick: upgrading from lenny to feisty [04:18] or any other trick along the lines of upgrading debian to ubuntu [04:18] * ajmitch successfully did that [04:19] sid->hoary [04:19] pwnguin: Not quite the same, but I did do Dapper --> Gutsy direct as an experiment. [04:19] would it be too much to ask to put the .torrents in the pool? just a thought. [04:19] hamm->gutsy? [04:19] evand: that's just wrong [04:19] I'm tempted to try it [04:19] just to see what happens [04:19] though I'm sure it can be done, just ask Mithrandir [04:19] make sure to film it [04:20] haha [04:20] it only counts if apt-get does ti [04:20] no chroot cheating [04:21] http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/documentation/faq/upgrade-sarge [04:21] be afraid [04:22] * ScottK has one computer still on Xandros 3 (for my kids). He is pondering Xandros (sarge derived) --> Gutsy (after backing up data). [04:22] ouch, ubuntu.com just fell over [04:22] afraid of the drupal error due to people constantly refreshing the page? [04:22] heh [04:22] Burgundavia: see #ubuntu-release-party for why [04:23] it's mad [04:23] oh juoy [04:24] there's a point where IRC becomes completely unreadable. #ubuntu-release-party seems to be moving at a rate above that. [04:24] are ubuntulinux.org and ubuntu.com the same site? [04:24] evand: #ubuntu itself often approaches that [04:25] pwnguin: I'm smart enough to never attempt to venture in *that* place. ;) [04:25] pretty please .torrents in the pool, help save the server's bandwidth ;) [04:26] Artemis3: It was said earlier that the torrents will probably not hit the servers until tomorrow. [04:27] ok but tomorrow 19 or tomorrow 18? because of utc time, etc... [04:27] morning ScottK [04:27] Artemis3: err, it's not that simple [04:27] ajmitch: oh indeed. it seems i've been trying them [04:28] build a torrent and upload to any public tracker? [04:28] heh [04:28] put a torrent on thepiratebay [04:28] yeah, that would be faster, maybe i will === jdong_ is now known as jdonginator [04:55] haha, should I yell "ITS HERE!!!" in #ubuntu-release-party? [04:55] Too late, you've been beaten to the punch like 500 times. [04:55] but I bet they go for it again [04:55] that's the fun [04:55] is it done ? [04:55] it's like Pavlov's dogs [04:56] what, they got fat ? [04:56] ring a bell and they start drooling [04:56] It's hilarious. There are countdowns to midnight every single hour. [04:57] thanks for the torrents [05:00] LaserJock: it's madness in there [05:01] it is [05:01] what fun [05:03] * ajmitch might grab the iso images in a week or so [05:04] until then, I'll refresh some QA tools & other things to fix :) [05:05] wow [05:05] ajmitch: I just signed up on shipit [05:05] I tend to leave images to burn on the laptop for when I need them [05:05] I'll get something like 10 Ubuntu and 2 Edubuntu CDs sometime in the future [05:07] hmm the tracker torrent page seems a bit weird... [05:09] wow, that's just ... [05:09] I wonder what the average age in there is [05:09] tonyyarusso: The topic in #ubuntu-release-party needs updating as #ubuntu+1 redirects to #ubuntu now. [05:10] Did everyone get kicked from #ubuntu+1 as well? [05:10] LaserJock: about 12, I think [05:10] LaserJock, ajmitch: Less I daresay [05:10] wow that room gives me a headache [05:10] ScottK: k [05:10] I was gonna say IQ, but I that might not be so nice [05:11] *I think [05:11] LaserJock: talk like yoda day? [05:11] ScottK: btw, all Ubuntu members have ops in -r-p now [05:11] haha [05:11] tonyyarusso: does that mean I can kick people?!?! [05:12] It's hard to tell from age. At dinner on Monday night our 16 year old was asking questions to her mother (because she didn't know) and our 4 year old answered her (correctly). [05:12] LaserJock: yes. [05:12] LaserJock: s/kick/remove/ though [05:12] ScottK: Blink [05:12] tonyyarusso: I don't want my nick to be the one that set the topic in there. [05:12] StevenK: Yes. It was really funny when it happened. [05:12] Our 4 year old often seems like she's 4 going on 24 anyway. [05:13] That and been a teenager seems to be a cause of temporary brain damage. [05:13] ScottK: fair enough [05:14] ScottK: What was the question? [05:14] I wish I remembered. [05:14] ScottK: Most 4 years olds do. [05:15] ok time for some sleep, gnight all [05:15] But it was definitely something I expected the 16 year old to know and the 4 year old not. [05:15] imbrandon: Wimp (he's an hour west of me). [05:15] imbrandon: already? [05:15] ScottK: And if you think 16 is bad, wait for 19 [05:16] StevenK: At least then she'll be away at college most of the time. [05:16] ScottK: How does that help? :-) [05:16] Actually for her 13 seems to have been (so far) the peak. [05:16] ajmitch: yea i'm just gonna take an 3 hour nap or something [05:16] StevenK: I have to deal with it less frequently. [05:17] ScottK: But surely then, the problems will be bigger? [05:17] Of course her younger step-sister is 13 and just ramping up into her teenagerdom. [05:17] * StevenK has this feeling he isn't helping. [05:18] StevenK: No doubt, but I'd rath have a few big problems to deal with than the steady drip, drip, drip, drip continuous pull of them. [05:18] you'd rather lurch from crisis to crisis? [05:19] Absolutely. It's the story of my life. [05:19] sounds liek software development [05:19] s/liek/like/ [05:31] I think I should tell #ubuntu-release-party that ajmitch is a release manager [05:32]