Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 00:25 +, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > With Michael Vogt, Jamie Strandboge and the Ubuntu Security teams in > ~canonical-partner-dev we can be confident in their handling of security > matters, again modulo 'upstream'. After participating in discussions surrounding the partner archive this past week, I wanted to take a moment to respond. The partner archive has been and will continue to be an important resource for many Ubuntu users. Canonical's Ubuntu Engineering team will utilize Canonical's business relationships to work with upstream vendors in providing quality packages for the partner archive as well as security updates for these packages when they are made available by the upstream vendor. As with other parts of Ubuntu, we welcome contributions from the community in helping achieve these goals. Thanks -- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
Thanks Colin!
With Michael Vogt, Jamie Strandboge and the Ubuntu Security teams in
~canonical-partner-dev we can be confident in their handling of security
matters, again modulo 'upstream'.
I have a strong preference for the remix to be done in a way which is
not special to Canonical's trademark rights in Ubuntu, which is why I
asked it to be redone on that basis and why I'm pursuing the thread,
despite everyone saying 'I don't mind the remix but...'.
Pitti and Scott both said that they would prefer not to think of Partner
as part of Ubuntu. I prefer to think of it that way, because (a) I have
no problem with TB oversight of the practices that govern it, and (b) I
think it's good to reaffirm that our preference for free software is not
also a refusal to touch the rest. Nevertheless, I understand that we may
end up with a range of views rather than consensus.
Simplistically, I think that means 'we don't mind the remix', and could
go ahead, but we'll continue to hold off on any publication of it to see
if the thread turns up more suggestions. It's been good to get this
feedback. So far, I think the clarifications around bug tracking have
been very useful, as has the realisation that we could figure out how to
enable non-Canonical participation in the packaging and maintenance of
that archive. What other ideas?
Mark
On 01/02/12 23:17, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:02:26PM +, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>> On 31/01/12 09:55, Alan Bell wrote:
>>> * Stuff gets added post-release with no pre-release testing, nowhere
>>> to report bugs and contribute fixes on Launchpad etc. etc.)
>> Good point, I thought bug reporting should be normal, and if it isn't,
>> let's fix that.
> I thought it was already, e.g.:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/skype/+bugs
>
> (Earlier in the thread, somebody referred to a bug about the namespacing
> of this, which of course is tied into this thread. That bug also has a
> two-year-old comment saying that partner was due to move into a PPA or
> PPAs; if that happened, the positioning in the bug system would
> presumably change somehow although I have no idea how.)
>
> I don't know to what extent bug mail goes anywhere useful, gets acted
> on, etc. However, ~canonical-partner-dev is subscribed:
>
> >>> ubuntu = lp.distributions["ubuntu"]
> >>> skype = ubuntu.getSourcePackage(name="skype")
> >>> [s.subscriber.name for s in skype.getSubscriptions()]
> [u'canonical-partner-dev', u'costamagnagianfranco']
>
> It looks like ~canonical-partner-dev is subscribed to the majority of
> packages in partner, although not quite all. Posting the full list here
> wouldn't be terribly interesting, but something like this doesn't take
> too long to run:
>
> >>> for series_name in ('hardy', 'lucid', 'maverick', 'natty',
> ... 'oneiric', 'precise'):
> ... print series_name
> ... series = ubuntu.getSeries(name_or_version=series_name)
> ... pubs = partner.getPublishedSources(
> ... distro_series=series, status="Published")
> ... source_names = sorted([pub.source_package_name for pub in pubs])
> ... for source_name in source_names:
> ... source = ubuntu.getSourcePackage(name=source_name)
> ... subs = source.getSubscriptions()
> ... print " %s: %s" % (
> ... source_name, " ".join([s.subscriber.name for s in subs]))
>
--
technical-board mailing list
technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:02:26PM +, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> On 31/01/12 09:55, Alan Bell wrote:
> > * Stuff gets added post-release with no pre-release testing, nowhere
> > to report bugs and contribute fixes on Launchpad etc. etc.)
>
> Good point, I thought bug reporting should be normal, and if it isn't,
> let's fix that.
I thought it was already, e.g.:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/skype/+bugs
(Earlier in the thread, somebody referred to a bug about the namespacing
of this, which of course is tied into this thread. That bug also has a
two-year-old comment saying that partner was due to move into a PPA or
PPAs; if that happened, the positioning in the bug system would
presumably change somehow although I have no idea how.)
I don't know to what extent bug mail goes anywhere useful, gets acted
on, etc. However, ~canonical-partner-dev is subscribed:
>>> ubuntu = lp.distributions["ubuntu"]
>>> skype = ubuntu.getSourcePackage(name="skype")
>>> [s.subscriber.name for s in skype.getSubscriptions()]
[u'canonical-partner-dev', u'costamagnagianfranco']
It looks like ~canonical-partner-dev is subscribed to the majority of
packages in partner, although not quite all. Posting the full list here
wouldn't be terribly interesting, but something like this doesn't take
too long to run:
>>> for series_name in ('hardy', 'lucid', 'maverick', 'natty',
... 'oneiric', 'precise'):
... print series_name
... series = ubuntu.getSeries(name_or_version=series_name)
... pubs = partner.getPublishedSources(
... distro_series=series, status="Published")
... source_names = sorted([pub.source_package_name for pub in pubs])
... for source_name in source_names:
... source = ubuntu.getSourcePackage(name=source_name)
... subs = source.getSubscriptions()
... print " %s: %s" % (
... source_name, " ".join([s.subscriber.name for s in subs]))
--
Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com]
--
technical-board mailing list
technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
Hi Alan Thanks for the insights, it's good to see what different people would look for in a business remix. I'll comment in detail below, but would also say that the choices in this remix were informed based on a review of what sysadmins are doing in practice. As ever, it's an average and so won't fit all tastes, but it's aimed at being a best-guess, non-ideological starting point. On 31/01/12 09:55, Alan Bell wrote: > I have wanted a business desktop remix for some time. The partner > archive does not seem to be particularly relevant to this, I have some > reservations about the partner archive, mostly already stated, but > here is my list: > * Alfresco came and went and was broken and I couldn't contribute a > fix and reporting bugs was painful as it fell in the gap between > Canonical and Alfresco. > * Anyone installing it would be worse off than installing manually > from upstream because there were no updates to the packaged version, > no clear plan on whether it would be best to wait for a new packaged > upgrade or dump upstream source on top of the packaged installed > Alfresco (at best, if it worked at all this would be unsupported by > anyone) There's a large category of things which are very difficult to package well, especially complex java server apps. Alfresco is a good example. In future, we'll try to solve these with Juju rather than packaging, using packages for parts which are common shared dependencies. > * Sun Java was in the partner repo and wasn't a wise installation choice AFAIK the Sun Java package was well maintained. That means it was better to get it from partner than from a Sun-provided tarball, which would not self-update. The fact that Oracle has revoked our rights to distribute it isn't a strike against the partner repo, imo. > * Stuff gets added post-release with no pre-release testing, nowhere > to report bugs and contribute fixes on Launchpad etc. etc.) Good point, I thought bug reporting should be normal, and if it isn't, let's fix that. The namespace should be flat, so there should be no problem reporting bugs in LP against partner packages. We don't put these packages in the normal archive for the simple reason that it would complicate the life of mirrors. > so right now for me the partner repo is empty. > http://archive.canonical.com/dists/precise/partner/binary-amd64/ ISV's won't often target an unreleased version :) Given that precise is an LTS, I'm sure it will fill up. > Looking back at Oneiric it contains Adobe reader (evince is better), > Adobe flash (standard downloader package works fine) and something > called centrifydc which relates to authenticating against a windows > server of some kind. Thats it. We're not here to judge Acrobat vs Evince. I know what I use, and it's probably what you use, but I'm not here to tell someone who needs Acrobat that they should jump through hoops just because neither you nor I would use it. > For me at least, Ubuntu + an elderly version of Adobe reader is not > really my vision of what the Ubuntu business desktop remix could be. > > What I would like to see is a vision for the Ubuntu desktop in a > business context that is Free Software end to end. Agreed, I think that would be wonderful. > > * Gwibber for connecting to public and private social business > networks like Linked-in, Ecademy, Yammer, Huddle or an internal Elgg etc > * Empathy instant messaging with support for Sametime, Groupwise > * De-emphasise the music and photo stuff. Banshee/Rhythmbox are fine > to have, people listen to music at work, but clicking the dash right > now (yeah I know it is changing) would kind of imply that "look at > photos" and "listen to music" is 50% of what the computer is *for* > * Lenses for connecting to open and proprietary business systems. I > really want to know the right way to do an authenticated lens. I would > like to search in the dash for a customer name and find correspondence > in Alfresco, contact information from vTiger (or even SalesForce.com), > invoices and project details from OpenERP or SAP, and a button to > click to call the contacts through an Asterisk server. All sounds good. > * A relationship with Ubuntu Server. I want to install the Ubuntu > Business Desktop and it should ask "Where is my Ubuntu Server please" > and then everything just works, in terms of authentication, printing, > configuration. Right now there is no special magic between Ubuntu > desktop and Ubuntu server. That also sounds interesting - opinionated network architecture, essentially. In most large-scale deployment, however, many of those decisions are already taken, often for hysterical raisons, and there's not much we can do but enable people to integrate smoothly. That includes integrating with Active Directory, for example, so perhaps that Centrify option isn't such a bad idea ;-) I don't disagree with the attractiveness of the vision you describe. But that doesn't diminish the value of a remix which reflects what Real S
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On 31/01/12 09:27, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote: > >> software to be 'part of Ubuntu'? From my perspective: >> >> * it would need to be exposed in the software center >> * it would need a counterparty to a VMWare distribution agreement, >> * it would need to be packaged to a high standard, modulo the >> constraints imposed by the ISV > Is there a mechanism you can think of which would allow, say, VMWare > > What if there's a packaging bug in partner? Would Ubuntu developers be > able to fix it and upload it? That's a reasonable question. I don't see any reason why that would not be possible, modulo the upload, which probably needs to be sponsored. Even that might not be the case, we could treat the archive like main. >>> From a user perspective, it would need to represent the 'best and >> recommended way to consume that software on Ubuntu'. >> >> Having an archive backed by Canonical allows us (Ubuntu) to enable users >> to use their standard tools across a wider range of software. It saves >> them from tarballs, install scripts, wget | sudo etc ;-) > > Is it possible to have a Canonical backed archive that is completely > integrated into the Ubuntu project? Fall under an Ubuntu.com domain, > fit into the Ubuntu governance structure (TB, CC, DMB, etc could vote > on issues regarding the archive), etc? Well, we're having this conversation, so I think it's fair to say the TB and CC do have a say ;) > Surely there's more to having it officially part of Ubuntu than having > it available in Software Center? > What would your average user say? I think your average user would say 'I found this stuff through Ubuntu itself, I assume it's part of Ubuntu'. >> a review of what's in there and steer it in a better direction, if there >> are concerns? I would feel the TB should be comfortable expressing a >> view on *how* to achieve that goal, I'm less comfortable with the TB >> expressing a view on whether that's a goal for the project, but then I >> respect all the folk *on* the TB, all of whom are also long term and >> senior project leaders, which is why it makes sense to engage in the >> thread. > > What's wrong with the TB expressing their views on the goals for the > project in terms of the Partner repository? I'd expect nothing less > from a board like the TB! We make a big point of delegating the right questions to the right audience, and not trying to get everybody to agree, or feel entitled to question, every decision. The TB's mandate is to ensure quality, participation and future-proof-ness of the bits. So I was saying I felt very comfortable having a conversation with the TB (an invitation to comment and guide) around the way the archive is managed and maintained, and the standards we set for bits we deliver to our users. The CC's mandate is closer to the policy questions raised here, if there are any. That's why they are cc'd. And I was expressly saying that, given the credentials of the TB folk, I'm happy to get the input from them and keen to seek an approach which has their support (and from people subscribed to this list ;-). Mark -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
Mark Shuttleworth [2012-01-30 23:31 +]: > As a very positive outcome from this, we could ask the team responsible > for Partner to articulate the standards to which they hold work that > goes into that archive. For the record, a while ago we consolidated the Partner and extras.ubuntu.com policies into https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy I'm not closely involved in day-to-day partner archive maintenance, but it seems to me that this is a fairly realistic policy of how Partner works today. > * the standards for that archive should be as high as those for SRU's, > since we pump updates there to world+dog and the stuff is exposed via > software center I can't comment on the real-life situation of this myself, I haven't closely followed updates which go into partner. But above policy imposes no restrictions to what kind of changes to already existing partner packages can be uploaded. We realistically need to be much more liberal here, as unlike with Ubuntu archive SRUs, we don't have the option of backporting individual fixes. > * we make the same security commitment there as we do for Ubuntu, > modulo availability of source, so it's the same as restricted in that regard That would make a fine addition to above policy indeed. > Would folk be happy if the Partner standards were articulated and > committed, in the way described? FWIW I've asked the team to hold off on > publishing till we've explored this fully together, but if we could > reach agreement by email that would be much appreciated. For the record, I have no reservations about the "Ubuntu Business Remix" as it is. I'm still a little unclear about the definition of what "Ubuntu" is (see my reply to that thread from ten minutes ago), but that's more related to workflows, policies, and developer community organization than the actual product. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
Hello all, thanks Mark for bringing up your view on this. I must say I was quite surprised to read it, so far I thought we all had a fairly identical defintion of what the partner archive is. Mark Shuttleworth [2012-01-29 15:49 +]: > Some of the applications that are important to that whole ecosystem may > not be redistributed. Partner serves as the vehicle to make those > available on Ubuntu. Rather than going down the road of seeking to > marginalize Canonical's role, with prejudicial language like "(secret) > commercial agreements", please recognise that this is precisely the > point of building a project which has both community and commercial > teams working together. I think that mixes together two different things. I didn't hear anyone saying that they don't appreciate Canonical's efforts in making popular commercial software like Skype or VMWare player easily available for Ubuntu. I personally believe that if Ubuntu wants to be successful, we absolutely have to make it super-easy to get this software, because a lot of people depend on them. And our software-center does just that. But "for" Ubuntu, and making it easy to get it "on" Ubuntu is IMHO not the same as "being Ubuntu". http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu itself stresses that it is a free operating system, partner is not on *.ubuntu.com, it is not packaged by the same set of people, has its own, radically different, sets of policies and procedures, etc. So I agree it could be considered as part of the "Ubuntu movement" and the efforts of builing an OS which people want, i. e. a "selling point". But at least for me as in my role of Ubuntu developer it's even further apart than e. g. PPAs. (But again, distance in maintenance policy is unrelated to its utility.) > Our goal is to offer a platform that combines those values with > access (easy but optional) to the full range of what's possible on > Linux. I fully agree to this. But that doesn't mean that everythign that runs on Ubuntu instantly becomes part of the platform. To the contrary, I think we need to go even further in making easier for people to run their sofware on Ubuntu without having to get it into Ubuntu. The success of e. g. the Android Market shows that quite nicely, I think, as well as our inability to keep even the current archive in a really good condition. Thanks, 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
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On 31/01/12 09:27, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote: Hi! If I may chime in? ... me too! I have wanted a business desktop remix for some time. The partner archive does not seem to be particularly relevant to this, I have some reservations about the partner archive, mostly already stated, but here is my list: * Alfresco came and went and was broken and I couldn't contribute a fix and reporting bugs was painful as it fell in the gap between Canonical and Alfresco. * Anyone installing it would be worse off than installing manually from upstream because there were no updates to the packaged version, no clear plan on whether it would be best to wait for a new packaged upgrade or dump upstream source on top of the packaged installed Alfresco (at best, if it worked at all this would be unsupported by anyone) * Sun Java was in the partner repo and wasn't a wise installation choice * Stuff gets added post-release with no pre-release testing, nowhere to report bugs and contribute fixes on Launchpad etc. etc.) so right now for me the partner repo is empty. http://archive.canonical.com/dists/precise/partner/binary-amd64/ Looking back at Oneiric it contains Adobe reader (evince is better), Adobe flash (standard downloader package works fine) and something called centrifydc which relates to authenticating against a windows server of some kind. Thats it. Incidentally, it might be fine, but a filename of looks a bit odd to me in http://archive.canonical.com/dists/oneiric/partner/binary-amd64/Packages.gz For me at least, Ubuntu + an elderly version of Adobe reader is not really my vision of what the Ubuntu business desktop remix could be. What I would like to see is a vision for the Ubuntu desktop in a business context that is Free Software end to end. * Gwibber for connecting to public and private social business networks like Linked-in, Ecademy, Yammer, Huddle or an internal Elgg etc * Empathy instant messaging with support for Sametime, Groupwise * De-emphasise the music and photo stuff. Banshee/Rhythmbox are fine to have, people listen to music at work, but clicking the dash right now (yeah I know it is changing) would kind of imply that "look at photos" and "listen to music" is 50% of what the computer is *for* * Lenses for connecting to open and proprietary business systems. I really want to know the right way to do an authenticated lens. I would like to search in the dash for a customer name and find correspondence in Alfresco, contact information from vTiger (or even SalesForce.com), invoices and project details from OpenERP or SAP, and a button to click to call the contacts through an Asterisk server. * A relationship with Ubuntu Server. I want to install the Ubuntu Business Desktop and it should ask "Where is my Ubuntu Server please" and then everything just works, in terms of authentication, printing, configuration. Right now there is no special magic between Ubuntu desktop and Ubuntu server. none of this is particularly relevant to the partner repo. Alan. -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
Hi! If I may chime in? ... On 31/01/2012 10:18, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: On 31/01/12 05:02, Scott Kitterman wrote: At least from my point of view, this misses the concern. Partner is a private Canonical archive that Ubuntu developers are completely uninvolved with. It is even less a part of Ubuntu than non-free is part of Debian. I don't think we need to retroactively declare Partner part of Ubuntu to allow the business remix to go forward and I think it will be damaging to Ubuntu as a free software project to do so. Is there a mechanism you can think of which would allow, say, VMWare software to be 'part of Ubuntu'? From my perspective: * it would need to be exposed in the software center * it would need a counterparty to a VMWare distribution agreement, * it would need to be packaged to a high standard, modulo the constraints imposed by the ISV What if there's a packaging bug in partner? Would Ubuntu developers be able to fix it and upload it? From a user perspective, it would need to represent the 'best and recommended way to consume that software on Ubuntu'. Having an archive backed by Canonical allows us (Ubuntu) to enable users to use their standard tools across a wider range of software. It saves them from tarballs, install scripts, wget | sudo etc ;-) Is it possible to have a Canonical backed archive that is completely integrated into the Ubuntu project? Fall under an Ubuntu.com domain, fit into the Ubuntu governance structure (TB, CC, DMB, etc could vote on issues regarding the archive), etc? Surely there's more to having it officially part of Ubuntu than having it available in Software Center? * third parties are free to remix from there, to the extent they also have distribution rights for the relevant bits (Canonical don't assert any IP in the packaging work) I'm not aware of anyone having recent complaints about the quality of packaging in Partner. This isn't, at least to me, about how well Partner is working, it's about what it is. Indeed :) But can we at least agree that Partner should work well? Perhaps ask for a review of what's in there and steer it in a better direction, if there are concerns? I would feel the TB should be comfortable expressing a view on *how* to achieve that goal, I'm less comfortable with the TB expressing a view on whether that's a goal for the project, but then I respect all the folk *on* the TB, all of whom are also long term and senior project leaders, which is why it makes sense to engage in the thread. What's wrong with the TB expressing their views on the goals for the project in terms of the Partner repository? I'd expect nothing less from a board like the TB! -Jonathan -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On 31/01/12 05:02, Scott Kitterman wrote: > At least from my point of view, this misses the concern. Partner is a > private Canonical archive that Ubuntu developers are completely > uninvolved with. It is even less a part of Ubuntu than non-free is > part of Debian. I don't think we need to retroactively declare Partner > part of Ubuntu to allow the business remix to go forward and I think > it will be damaging to Ubuntu as a free software project to do so. Is there a mechanism you can think of which would allow, say, VMWare software to be 'part of Ubuntu'? From my perspective: * it would need to be exposed in the software center * it would need a counterparty to a VMWare distribution agreement, * it would need to be packaged to a high standard, modulo the constraints imposed by the ISV >From a user perspective, it would need to represent the 'best and recommended way to consume that software on Ubuntu'. Having an archive backed by Canonical allows us (Ubuntu) to enable users to use their standard tools across a wider range of software. It saves them from tarballs, install scripts, wget | sudo etc ;-) If I understand your email, you're saying 'it's OK for this remix to go ahead without us retroactively declaring partner as part of Ubuntu'. I appreciate that. But I prefer to see if there's a way we can bring Partner into the fold, because I think it's divisive to have exceptions, and I think it's important to agree on the mission. Access to non-free stuff in a classy way, from a free platform, is part of that mission. We may have our own aspirations to obsolete the stuff in partner asap, but the mission of Ubuntu is not to make users lives more difficult. That would be like security through obscurity, it would be 'freedom through complication', and no good freedom at all! >> My understanding, which could be mistaken, is that: >> * the standards for that archive should be as high as those for SRU's, >> since we pump updates there to world+dog and the stuff is exposed via >> software center >> * we make the same security commitment there as we do for Ubuntu, >> modulo availability of source, so it's the same as restricted in that >> regard> >> * third parties are free to remix from there, to the extent they also >> have distribution rights for the relevant bits (Canonical don't assert >> any IP in the packaging work) > I'm not aware of anyone having recent complaints about the quality of > packaging in Partner. This isn't, at least to me, about how well Partner is > working, it's about what it is. Indeed :) But can we at least agree that Partner should work well? Perhaps ask for a review of what's in there and steer it in a better direction, if there are concerns? I would feel the TB should be comfortable expressing a view on *how* to achieve that goal, I'm less comfortable with the TB expressing a view on whether that's a goal for the project, but then I respect all the folk *on* the TB, all of whom are also long term and senior project leaders, which is why it makes sense to engage in the thread. >> The 'extras' archive is a good catch, Colin. And the description of a >> remix as "you can get here by starting with vanilla Ubuntu and fiddling >> around in a package manager" is very useful too. It captures the core >> goal of remixes: >> * allow third parties to use the Ubuntu name with very low friction >> * ensure that policy results in things which are, in some clear sense, >> compatible with Ubuntu > So other commercial software gotten in through the commercial mechanisms in > software center would be eligible for being in some other remix? The question for me is one of handwavy topology: could I start with standard Ubuntu, morph to the remix without adding software sources that we (in the dualistic definition of we) don't have any control over, and conversely, could I start with the remix and use apt to get back to something like vanilla Ubuntu? That way: * we know we're on a supported kernel and toolchain the whole time * we know we're on supported X and glibc and Gtk and Qt Of course, ymmv, there's a LOT of software in the universe, etc. But principally, we don't have alternative versions of key packages to work out. That's what makes a remix different to something that includes, say, a PPA. The namespace across those core archives is maintained as a whole. Or should be. >> Would folk be happy if the Partner standards were articulated and >> committed, in the way described? FWIW I've asked the team to hold off on >> publishing till we've explored this fully together, but if we could >> reach agreement by email that would be much appreciated. > Ultimately I think what is or is not acceptable for a remix is driven by the > trademark policy and is up to Canonical, but I very much hope that Ubuntu the > distribution will maintain it's focus as a free software (with some limited > exceptions) distribution. I'd prefer Canonical to be making a remix under the same terms as a
Ubuntu Business Remix update
First, I appreciate your willingness to engage with the community on this important topic. Also, apologies for the lack of proper threading as I wasn't subscribed to the list until tonight, so this 'reply' is somewhat artificially constructed. Some comments in-line. Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > As a very positive outcome from this, we could ask the team responsible > for Partner to articulate the standards to which they hold work that > goes into that archive. If it's in any way sub-par for reasons that are > not forced by the ISV, we can raise the game. I would not want anyone to > feel that Partner was a rats nest, rather, that it's the best way to get > the stuff that can only be got from an approved source. If need be, > let's change the name, to unredistributable or the like. At least from my point of view, this misses the concern. Partner is a private Canonical archive that Ubuntu developers are completely uninvolved with. It is even less a part of Ubuntu than non-free is part of Debian. I don't think we need to retroactively declare Partner part of Ubuntu to allow the business remix to go forward and I think it will be damaging to Ubuntu as a free software project to do so. > My understanding, which could be mistaken, is that: > * the standards for that archive should be as high as those for SRU's, > since we pump updates there to world+dog and the stuff is exposed via > software center > * we make the same security commitment there as we do for Ubuntu, > modulo availability of source, so it's the same as restricted in that > regard> > * third parties are free to remix from there, to the extent they also > have distribution rights for the relevant bits (Canonical don't assert > any IP in the packaging work) I'm not aware of anyone having recent complaints about the quality of packaging in Partner. This isn't, at least to me, about how well Partner is working, it's about what it is. > The 'extras' archive is a good catch, Colin. And the description of a > remix as "you can get here by starting with vanilla Ubuntu and fiddling > around in a package manager" is very useful too. It captures the core > goal of remixes: > * allow third parties to use the Ubuntu name with very low friction > * ensure that policy results in things which are, in some clear sense, > compatible with Ubuntu So other commercial software gotten in through the commercial mechanisms in software center would be eligible for being in some other remix? > Would folk be happy if the Partner standards were articulated and > committed, in the way described? FWIW I've asked the team to hold off on > publishing till we've explored this fully together, but if we could > reach agreement by email that would be much appreciated. Ultimately I think what is or is not acceptable for a remix is driven by the trademark policy and is up to Canonical, but I very much hope that Ubuntu the distribution will maintain it's focus as a free software (with some limited exceptions) distribution. Scott K -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
As a very positive outcome from this, we could ask the team responsible for Partner to articulate the standards to which they hold work that goes into that archive. If it's in any way sub-par for reasons that are not forced by the ISV, we can raise the game. I would not want anyone to feel that Partner was a rats nest, rather, that it's the best way to get the stuff that can only be got from an approved source. If need be, let's change the name, to unredistributable or the like. My understanding, which could be mistaken, is that: * the standards for that archive should be as high as those for SRU's, since we pump updates there to world+dog and the stuff is exposed via software center * we make the same security commitment there as we do for Ubuntu, modulo availability of source, so it's the same as restricted in that regard * third parties are free to remix from there, to the extent they also have distribution rights for the relevant bits (Canonical don't assert any IP in the packaging work) The 'extras' archive is a good catch, Colin. And the description of a remix as "you can get here by starting with vanilla Ubuntu and fiddling around in a package manager" is very useful too. It captures the core goal of remixes: * allow third parties to use the Ubuntu name with very low friction * ensure that policy results in things which are, in some clear sense, compatible with Ubuntu Would folk be happy if the Partner standards were articulated and committed, in the way described? FWIW I've asked the team to hold off on publishing till we've explored this fully together, but if we could reach agreement by email that would be much appreciated. Mark -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
I think I used a lot of words here and still didn't end up being very clear. I guess a reasonable summary would be that I don't attach a particular value judgement to something being part of Ubuntu or not, and that it seems a sufficiently slippery notion anyway that I think we'd do better to be clear about the exact properties we want from remixes instead. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 08:58:19PM +, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > On 29/01/12 18:38, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > Mark, you were surprised that a significant number of developers don't > > consider the partner repository part of Ubuntu. In addition to what > > Laney has pointed out, /etc/apt/sources.list has for years said: ## > > Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## > > 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is > > offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to > > Ubuntu users. [...] > Well, that's a poor choice of words. Those were probably my words, albeit mostly copied-and-pasted from elsewhere (ultimately, the ancestry of this phrasing probably goes back to "non-free is not part of Debian" ...). They do seem unnecessarily negative, so I'm happy to adjust them somehow. However, like others responding to this thread, I find it very difficult to consider partner to be "part of Ubuntu" in a way that has much meaning to me. Part of the Ubuntu ecosystem, yes; affiliated with Ubuntu, yes; built for use with Ubuntu, yes; presented to Ubuntu users, yes; important to the success of Ubuntu, yes; but actually part of Ubuntu, I just find that tough to fit into my mental model of things. For example, I'd been given to understand (albeit from a while back) that partner was due to migrate to a PPA at some point; PPAs are all those things as well, but I didn't think we considered them to be part of Ubuntu in general. Partner feels like a privileged kind of PPA to me more than anything else. You've made it very clear in this thread that you understand it differently, and presumably that you always did; but, without wanting to put words in anyone's mouth, my impression is that there's been a common understanding at variance to this among all the Ubuntu developers I've spoken to on the subject for some years, both within Canonical and without. I can't remember any public guidance to the contrary before this thread, and given that it's on archive.canonical.com, we often refer to it as the "Canonical partner archive" or similar, and that it behaves pretty much like a Canonical PPA in all but name, I don't think it's surprising that this shared understanding has come to be. We don't need to invoke any fundamental conflict between Canonical and the Ubuntu community to explain this, especially when Iain went out of his way to stress that he does consider it a valuable service. This is more about a sense of the mental model of "Ubuntu" that's perfectly natural for developers to acquire, particularly when e.g. we reinforce it by telling Ubuntu core developers that they are "collectively responsible for the maintenance of all packages in Ubuntu" (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#CoreDev). That makes it quite natural for those developers to feel a sense of co-ownership of the idea, which seems like a healthy thing to encourage (indeed: "feel a sense of personal responsibility for the quality of Ubuntu releases and for the satisfaction of Ubuntu users" - I'd be worried if developers *didn't* have strong feelings about what Ubuntu meant and their ability to improve it!). In the cause of reducing conflict, I wonder if this is a distinction we simply don't need to make. As Allison points out, a name like "Ubuntu" means different things in different contexts, and it's cumbersome to have to keep spelling out which one we mean, not to mention that the discussion about whether something is part of Ubuntu or not is by its very nature divisive. The remix guidelines say "In general, a Remix can have applications from the Ubuntu archives added"; the plural "archives" is in the original text. The point of the remix guidelines, as I remember it, was (a) to ensure a certain basic level of quality, associated with our ability to remove packages from the archive that didn't meet our quality standards, and (b) to ensure that the degree of difference between stock Ubuntu and any given remix would always be small enough that the difficulty of dealing with bug reports and the like about remixes wouldn't get out of control. In short, to preserve our good name, to keep the whole system more or less comprehensible, and to encourage important infrastructural changes to happen as part of Ubuntu itself. Now, partner is small; the TB-approved rules for it (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy - Scott R, from what you said I think you perhaps weren't aware of this) are intended to ensure a certain basic level of quality and gatekeeping; and we already present them to Ubuntu users, so the general idea that a remix is more or less something you could get by starting up Ubuntu and fiddling about in Software Center a bit hasn't been broken. Aside from the issue of establishing suitable distribution agreements, I'm not sure it would be unreasonable to simply say that this is something remixes can include, provided that they make it clear to their
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On 01/29/2012 10:38 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On 29 January 2012 10:49, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: >> On 25/01/12 17:28, Iain Lane wrote: >>> Don't get me wrong, partner is a valuable service to its users, >>> it's just that it is fundamentally different to the Ubuntu >>> archive as far as I can see. It's a service that Canonical >>> provides for Ubuntu, sure, but that doesn't make it a part of >>> Ubuntu itself. >> >> Yes, yes, and no. Yes, it is different to the standard Ubuntu >> archives. Yes, it is a service provided by Canonical. And no, we >> disagree, it *is* part of Ubuntu. It's a good reason for people to >> choose Ubuntu, and a good reason to recommend it to friends who >> want the benefits of a free and open system but who must also, for >> whatever reason, have access to items that cannot be in the Ubuntu >> archives. > > Mark, you were surprised that a significant number of developers > don't consider the partner repository part of Ubuntu. In addition to > what Laney has pointed out, /etc/apt/sources.list has for years > said: > Moreover, partner apps are exempt from _everything_ that could be considered an Ubuntu standard of development: They don't have to comply with any policy, you don't have to be an Ubuntu Developer to upload them, you don't have to sign the code of conduct, you can't file bugs against them in launchpad, and they aren't checked by any automated tool which monitors the consistency of the archive. They are one step above downloading .deb files off a third-party web page, and I don't think we'd like to call that procedure "part of Ubuntu". Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On 01/29/2012 10:38 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the > ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. At various times we use the word "Ubuntu" to mean: - The Ubuntu CDs: distinct from the Kubuntu CDs, Xubuntu CDs, etc. - The Ubuntu project: governed by the TB & CC, including Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc. - The Ubuntu ecosystem: upstreams, downstreams, projects, and companies developing for, contributing to, and participating in Ubuntu. There's a bit of semantic fuzz here, Partner isn't part of the first two, but is part of the third. Debian is part of the first and the third, but not part of the second. In systems of governance, policies are meant to serve the people, not people to serve the policies. Occasionally, the people review the policies to ask "What did we mean?" and "How does this apply to X or Y new situation?", in the context of "How does this fit with our overall goals?" As an example, what about a remix that pulled in a few packages from Debian experimental, which didn't exist in the Ubuntu project archives? Similar but different, in a way that provides additional insight. Just food for thought, until the TB meeting next week. It's nice to have the Code of Conduct, and two groups of sage elders in the TB and CC, to provide a clear and healthy path to talk through different perspectives. Allison -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On 29/01/12 20:26, Scott Ritchie wrote: > Moreover, partner apps are exempt from _everything_ that could be > considered an Ubuntu standard of development: They don't have to > comply with any policy, you don't have to be an Ubuntu Developer to > upload them, you don't have to sign the code of conduct, you can't > file bugs against them in launchpad, and they aren't checked by any > automated tool which monitors the consistency of the archive. They are > one step above downloading .deb files off a third-party web page, and > I don't think we'd like to call that procedure "part of Ubuntu". > Thanks, Scott Ritchie Scott, consider the benefits of the commercial-community dichotomy before you undermine it. To the extent that Canonical can, we should and do move those packages into compliance. To the extent that we cannot, users are making an informed choice. So steady on with the pitchfork. Mark -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On 29/01/12 18:38, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Mark, you were surprised that a significant number of developers don't > consider the partner repository part of Ubuntu. In addition to what > Laney has pointed out, /etc/apt/sources.list has for years said: ## > Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## > 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is > offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to > Ubuntu users. deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner > deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner The > python-apt template says nearly the same thing: Suite: precise > Official: false RepositoryType: deb BaseURI: > http://archive.canonical.com MatchURI: archive.canonical.com > _Description: Canonical Partners Component: partner _CompDescription: > Software packaged by Canonical for their partners > _CompDescriptionLong: This software is not part of Ubuntu. > http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/precise/python-apt/precise/view/head:/data/templates/Ubuntu.info.in Well, that's a poor choice of words. I maintain it is part of Ubuntu, and would have no objections to a third-party remix of Ubuntu that referenced the partner repository. It would of course require agreement from the individual ISV's, but there would be no reason for them not to grant it. Universe and Multiverse were commented out for a long time. I was surprised when they got uncommented! But there's no real difference here apart from the need to have a commercial relationship in order to publish the software. > Also, because redistribution of partner apps is "not possible", I > could make a remix of any of the official Ubuntu flavors but I could > not remix a Ubuntu Business Remix with partner apps pre-installed. > That alone is an indicator that this is a major change. Jeremy Bicha You could make a remix, with apps to which you have distribution rights, and distribute it. Redistribution is not limited by us, but by the vendor. Please do not make this more complicated than it already is - the word has been done, and redone, for the benefit of Ubuntu users, and in a way that we judged best reflected the relationship of Ubuntu and Canonical. Mark -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On 29 January 2012 10:49, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > On 25/01/12 17:28, Iain Lane wrote: >> This is where we have problems. As far as Ubuntu developers are >> concerned, these packages are very much not as much of a part of >> Ubuntu as the rest of the archive. > > Which Ubuntu developers? Please avoid a simplistic us-and-them response ;-) > >> They live on archive.canonical.com, not archive.ubuntu.com. They're >> managed by Canonical employees, without (as far as I am aware) any way >> for the community to get involved. Most importantly, there are >> (secret) commercial agreements in place between Canonical and the ISVs >> in question that govern distribution. The rights that users receive >> are not the same as those they get from software in the main archive. > > Most of those things are true, but the whole misses the point. > > We have actively steered a course of open-ness when it comes to software > in Ubuntu, modulated by a clear constraint that we should ship only > non-free applications in the image of standard Ubuntu editions. So, we > include binary drivers, but not Flash. > > Some of the applications that are important to that whole ecosystem may > not be redistributed. Partner serves as the vehicle to make those > available on Ubuntu. Rather than going down the road of seeking to > marginalize Canonical's role, with prejudicial language like "(secret) > commercial agreements", please recognise that this is precisely the > point of building a project which has both community and commercial > teams working together. Our goal is not to compete with Debian for > Debianness, we cannot do that and it would not be constructive. Our goal > is to offer a platform that combines those values with access (easy but > optional) to the full range of what's possible on Linux. > >> Don't get me wrong, partner is a valuable service to its users, it's >> just that it is fundamentally different to the Ubuntu archive as far >> as I can see. It's a service that Canonical provides for Ubuntu, sure, >> but that doesn't make it a part of Ubuntu itself. > > Yes, yes, and no. Yes, it is different to the standard Ubuntu archives. > Yes, it is a service provided by Canonical. And no, we disagree, it *is* > part of Ubuntu. It's a good reason for people to choose Ubuntu, and a > good reason to recommend it to friends who want the benefits of a free > and open system but who must also, for whatever reason, have access to > items that cannot be in the Ubuntu archives. Mark, you were surprised that a significant number of developers don't consider the partner repository part of Ubuntu. In addition to what Laney has pointed out, /etc/apt/sources.list has for years said: ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner The python-apt template says nearly the same thing: Suite: precise Official: false RepositoryType: deb BaseURI: http://archive.canonical.com MatchURI: archive.canonical.com _Description: Canonical Partners Component: partner _CompDescription: Software packaged by Canonical for their partners _CompDescriptionLong: This software is not part of Ubuntu. http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/precise/python-apt/precise/view/head:/data/templates/Ubuntu.info.in Also, because redistribution of partner apps is "not possible", I could make a remix of any of the official Ubuntu flavors but I could not remix a Ubuntu Business Remix with partner apps pre-installed. That alone is an indicator that this is a major change. Jeremy Bicha -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On 25/01/12 17:28, Iain Lane wrote: > This is where we have problems. As far as Ubuntu developers are > concerned, these packages are very much not as much of a part of > Ubuntu as the rest of the archive. Which Ubuntu developers? Please avoid a simplistic us-and-them response ;-) > They live on archive.canonical.com, not archive.ubuntu.com. They're > managed by Canonical employees, without (as far as I am aware) any way > for the community to get involved. Most importantly, there are > (secret) commercial agreements in place between Canonical and the ISVs > in question that govern distribution. The rights that users receive > are not the same as those they get from software in the main archive. Most of those things are true, but the whole misses the point. We have actively steered a course of open-ness when it comes to software in Ubuntu, modulated by a clear constraint that we should ship only non-free applications in the image of standard Ubuntu editions. So, we include binary drivers, but not Flash. Some of the applications that are important to that whole ecosystem may not be redistributed. Partner serves as the vehicle to make those available on Ubuntu. Rather than going down the road of seeking to marginalize Canonical's role, with prejudicial language like "(secret) commercial agreements", please recognise that this is precisely the point of building a project which has both community and commercial teams working together. Our goal is not to compete with Debian for Debianness, we cannot do that and it would not be constructive. Our goal is to offer a platform that combines those values with access (easy but optional) to the full range of what's possible on Linux. > Don't get me wrong, partner is a valuable service to its users, it's > just that it is fundamentally different to the Ubuntu archive as far > as I can see. It's a service that Canonical provides for Ubuntu, sure, > but that doesn't make it a part of Ubuntu itself. Yes, yes, and no. Yes, it is different to the standard Ubuntu archives. Yes, it is a service provided by Canonical. And no, we disagree, it *is* part of Ubuntu. It's a good reason for people to choose Ubuntu, and a good reason to recommend it to friends who want the benefits of a free and open system but who must also, for whatever reason, have access to items that cannot be in the Ubuntu archives. Mark signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
Hi there again, > […] > 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. Allison kindly prodded me to raise this with the TB. I've added two questions to the agenda for the next meeting, whose answers I hope will help this to move forward. Cheers, -- Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ la...@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ la...@ubuntu.com ] PhD student [ i...@cs.nott.ac.uk ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On 01/24/2012 01:41 AM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > 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. > Legality aside, I do worry about an increase in Ubuntu-marked things that are wholly Canonical things. The Ubuntu project took a lot of grief for the launch failures of Ubuntu One. It's the flip side of trying to correct Journalists who write about "Canonical Linux" - this project is something larger than Canonical, but we make it increasingly harder to recognize that when we have the two brands comingle. -Scott -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
Hello, On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 09:41:35AM +, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > 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 release team was included too. > […] > * 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. This is where we have problems. As far as Ubuntu developers are concerned, these packages are very much not as much of a part of Ubuntu as the rest of the archive. They live on archive.canonical.com, not archive.ubuntu.com. They're managed by Canonical employees, without (as far as I am aware) any way for the community to get involved. Most importantly, there are (secret) commercial agreements in place between Canonical and the ISVs in question that govern distribution. The rights that users receive are not the same as those they get from software in the main archive. Don't get me wrong, partner is a valuable service to its users, it's just that it is fundamentally different to the Ubuntu archive as far as I can see. It's a service that Canonical provides for Ubuntu, sure, but that doesn't make it a part of Ubuntu itself. For a long time this was considered a bug in Launchpad, but Scott K closed it in response to the mail I am replying to. https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/153798 Cheers, -- Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ la...@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ la...@ubuntu.com ] PhD student [ i...@cs.nott.ac.uk ] 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
