Mir's strongest selling point was actually developed for Wayland by Jolla?

[tartalo]

I thought that Mir's strongest selling point was that it would eventually be possible to use Android drivers with it. So this article was an eye opener for me:

http://mer-project.blogspot.fi/2013/...u-drivers.html

[sanderj]

I'm not a Mir nor Wayland expert, but I would say
- Mir has the Android-driver-stuff included in its project scope
- Wayland has no Android-driver-stuff included in its project scope, but someone else is working on it

Related reading:

http://www.cnx-software.com/2013/03/...phics-drivers/
http://www.cnx-software.com/2013/04/...ries-in-linux/

[tartalo]

I'm not a Mir nor Wayland expert, but I would say
- Mir has the Android-driver-stuff included in its project scope
- Wayland has no Android-driver-stuff included in its project scope, but someone else is working on it

Related reading:

http://www.cnx-software.com/2013/03/...phics-drivers/
http://www.cnx-software.com/2013/04/...ries-in-linux/

Precisely, the article I linked has been written by the Jolla engineer that develops libhybris, I'll quote the Ubuntu-related part:

Open sourcing [libhybris] worked quite well - a small group of people got together, tested it, improved it, got it running on a lot of multiple chipsets - thanks to OpenWebOS, Florian Haenel (heeen), Thomas Perl (thp), Simon Busch (morphis) and others. It turned the project from a late night hacking project into a viable solution for building device OS'es on top of. Or even running Android NDK applications using.

Earlier this year however, I discovered that a well-known company had taken the code - disappeared underground with it for several months, improved upon it, utilized the capability in their advertisements and demos and in the end posted the code utilizing their own source control system, detached from any state of that of the upstream project's. Even to the extent some posters around the web thought libhybris was done by that company itself.

That kind of behavior ruined the initial reason I open sourced libhybris in the first place and I was shocked to the point that I contemplated to by default not open source my hobby projects any more. It's not cool for companies to do things like this, no matter your commercial reasons. It ruins it for all of us who want to strengthen the open source ecosystem. We could have really used your improvements and patches earlier on instead of struggling with some of these issues.

But, I will say that their behavior has improved - they are now participating in the project, discussing, upstreaming patches that are useful. And I forgive them because they've changed their ways and are participating sanely now.

[3rdalbum]

There's not really any details about how this feat is accomplished. It might be that Wayland is running on top of Android's windowing agent, or you have to patch Wayland for every different binary driver. Maybe only basic features in Wayland can be abstracted to the Android driver, without being able to support multitouch or video decode acceleration. Who knows? There's a second article coming out that will reveal how it's done.

[tartalo]

There's not really any details about how this feat is accomplished. It might be that Wayland is running on top of Android's windowing agent, or you have to patch Wayland for every different binary driver. Maybe only basic features in Wayland can be abstracted to the Android driver, without being able to support multitouch or video decode acceleration. Who knows? There's a second article coming out that will reveal how it's done.

I found this in Slashdot. Does it answer any of the questions?
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl...1&cid=43430347

If I undertand it correctly patching Wayland for every binary driver wouldn't be necessary, nor inviting Android's windowing agent to the party. Is that right?

[grahammechanical]

Suddenly, open source is not so open source after all. Anyone can, and often many people have, take code licensed under the GPL and use it for their own projects. But it seems that Canonical cannot do this without being called sneaky. Ubuntu is open source. Canonical code is open source. Plenty of people work on projects in secret or to put it more correctly, in private. What is wrong with that. Before you can make code available you first have to have code that works.

These people would be happy to take Canonical's money and deny Canonical influence in the development process. Oh, yes, for sure. Canonical makes money but it does not make a profit. Why? It spends its money hiring people.

If you do not want anyone that you do not approve of using your code, then do not release it under an Open Source license.

[hainen]

That is not true. It has always been bad style to fork something and make it hidden a long time before you release.
It is a different thing if its something you have done from scratch and not a fork of a already working project. But obviously so long you release the code when you distribute the binaries you are legally on secure ground.
But if you look at the kernel which has been culturally very important in the free software world I get the impression they usually develop new functionality in the open from start.

[mikodo]

That is not true. It has always been bad style to fork something and make it hidden a long time before you release.
It is a different thing if its something you have done from scratch and not a fork of a already working project. But obviously so long you release the code when you distribute the binaries you are legally on secure ground.
But if you look at the kernel which has been culturally very important in the free software world I get the impression they usually develop new functionality in the open from start.

Are you saying that others before Ubuntu haven't taken open source code, developed it to their liking in house, before releasing the code hasn't been in practice?

If that is that the case, then things are changing. But, I doubt it isn't new.

;p

[JDShu]

Are you saying that others before Ubuntu haven't taken open source code, developed it to their liking in house, before releasing the code hasn't been in practice?

If that is that the case, then things are changing. But, I doubt it isn't new.

;p

No. That's not what hainen said. He said that it has always been bad style to do what Canonical did, no matter who you are.

[3rdalbum]

Sometimes, you just gotta do it to keep the project moving. Take KHTML - it was being developed very slowly, and then Apple ran with it and the end result became Webkit. Everyone benefitted from Webkit.