Re: Harmonizing DMB membership expiring dates
2012/1/20 Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com: Benjamin Drung [2012-01-09 20:40 +0100]: What do you think? Are we allowed to adjust the membership expiration dates? While it technically does not match the letter of what people voted on, I can't imagine anyone seriously complaining. Let's not be overly bureaucratic here, IMHO :-) Let's see what the other TB members think. Yeah, this doesn't even give me a reading at all on my controversial-o-meter :) Fine with me. -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Mesa floting point patent enquiry - continued
On the basis that apps would not need to be recompiled if this needs to be changed later, I still support enabling the functionality. Mark -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Kubuntu LTS
Martin Pitt [2011-12-20 9:23 +0100]: Hello Jonathan, Jonathan Riddell [2011-12-12 17:15 +]: https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/12.04/LTS-Proposal Jamie's questions would interest me as well. Aside from those, there is one thing which fell through the cracks in the TB meeting: qtwebkit-source is not merely a Qt binding around webkit, but a full code copy; this would need to be updated throughout the full LTS cycle. Is the Kubuntu team going to do this? Thank you! Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Ubuntu Business Remix update
Hi folk Allison made me aware of an off-list discussion amongst the TB regarding the Business Remix. Here's an update from my perspective, and to avoid further confusion please keep me and/or the CC in the loop on similar conversations in future. * The work has been done as a remix specifically to avoid concerns about Canonical's best work on packages going into anything other than the archives which are widely available. The team had to re-do their work to meet this requirement. * Steve Langasek raised a concern with me, that Partner might not be considered part of Ubuntu for remix purposes. That was a surprise to me, and is a simple omission rather than intended outcome. We index Partner packages in the Software Center - they are as much part of Ubuntu as multiverse it - they reflect packages where redistribution is not possible, and Canonical has to be directly involved as a contractual requirement of the ISV. We should simply clarify this in the remix guidelines if it is an issue. * There is no new precedent on proprietary bits here - remixes can certainly already pull from restricted and multiverse. * To avoid a delta in the installer and other packages, the EULA's of included packages from Partner will be presented through the web on download rather than in the installer or desktop UX. I don't believe there are any technical issues that warrant concern on the part of the TB, but am happy to be part of the discussion if you feel otherwise. From a CC perspective, again I don't believe there are policy questions or concerns. We would have no issue if a third party published a remix of this nature. It was a debate as to whether the name should be Canonical Business Desktop or Ubuntu Business Desktop, we felt the awkwardness of differentiating this from Ubuntu was very high - we do not want to be lumped in the same category as Fedora / RHEL as it is a completely different proposition from both Ubuntu and Canonical. There's no legal issue w.r.t. the trademark, both because this is a remix (and within guidelines for the use of the name) and because Canonical owns the mark in the first place. Mark -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Mesa floting point patent enquiry - continued
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:33:16AM +1100, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: Sorry for not following up on this sooner. I'd like to resolve this now that Mesa 8.0 is close to landing in Precise. The last status is ambiguous to me: Colin Watson's response[1] suggests against enabling the extensions, while Mark Shuttleworth's response[2] is for enabling them, and there doesn't appear to be a resolution of the two. I'm still unconvinced personally, but I'll defer to Mark. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
