This is what I call very good openness. Hope this continues and a fix to bug #1 is found soon. :)
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Fink wrote: > > I just read this article: > http://boycottnovell.com/2008/06/07/ubuntu-remix-codecs/ > > I hope this is wrong or I will have to stop using ubuntu and find > another distro to use. Such a shame... > > Mark, Remco > > There is (again) absolutely no truth to the rumour that Canonical has done > a deal with Microsoft for access to codecs - either in return for money, or > for some other quid-pro-quo. > > The recently-announced netbook remix is a prototype of the sort of platform > that Canonical is working on with OEM's. Those OEM's almost always want to > make sure that media is *legally* playable by the users who purchase their > devices, and Canonical will gladly work with companies like Real Media or > Fluendo to make sure that is possible. If you are an OEM you should be able > to ship machines based on Ubuntu and not break the law, and if you are an > individual user you should be able to purchase media codecs and not break > the law. Those codecs include things like Flash, MP3-4, WMV, QuickTime and > so on. > > That said, I will defend (again) the importance of being willing to work > with Microsoft, under reasonable and transparent conditions, to further > goals that we share, if the opportunity arises. > > I'm entirely against the idea that any company is "untouchable" - we have > our values, they have theirs, and it's important to remember that we might > actually have many things in common. For example, we both have an interest > in making sure that countries have open and competitive internet access, > because both Ubuntu and Windows depend on having fast internet access for > updates. We might well work together to encourage good telecommunications > policy. To reject that sort of collaboration is, in my mind, just as > self-defeating as it was for Microsoft to call the GPL "a cancer". The > reality is that the world is a heterogenous place, and Windows and Linux are > both real forces that need to be accommodated. That does not mean we need to > sell out on fundamental principles, as we think some distributions have > done, but it does mean we need to stay open to the possibility of > collaboration on terms that we are comfortable with. It's not working with > Microsoft that would be wrong, it's working with Microsoft in a way that > undermines free software. And Canonical has not and will not do that. > > There is nothing new in what is being done with the netbook remix. It is > not an edition of Ubuntu. It is not even a real "finished product" - what > you have are a set of packages that can be used together with Ubuntu to make > the starting point of an image for an OEM. There is no intentions to put > proprietary codecs into standard Ubuntu - that would be against our stated > principles. You are welcome to download and modify any of the pieces > Canonical has put together for that remix. The remix is more of a statement > of intent to the OEM industry - that there is an easy to use, classy, > effective starting point for their devices that is intrinsically Ubuntu > while still being friendly for "newbie netbook users". > > OEM's have always - as long as I have been around - wanted to help users > with the codec problem. Dell very kindly underwrites the cost of DVD > playback for people who purchase a machine from them with Ubuntu > pre-installed, using legal codecs and players. You might well question the > wisdom of the law that makes it necessary for that to be proprietary, but I > think Dell deserves praise and thanks for their willingness to help their > customers make DVD playback work. The more people are using Linux, the more > awareness there is of free software issues, the more likely it is that laws > are not written which make it impossible to do things in a free software > way. I'm proud to be part of the process of bringing free software to a > wider audience, and don't believe that working with OEM's to make it > possible for products - or end users - of Ubuntu to achieve their goals > legally is a setback in that regard. > > While I appreciate the vigilance of folks who have expressed concerns on > this thread, and understand that the role of Canonical within Ubuntu is such > that we *must* have constant scrutiny of Canonical's decisions by the > broader community, I would ask that this scrutiny itself be held to a high > standard. This rumour and thread sprung up with no evidence of a breach of > trust on the part of Canonical, and escalated into ad hominem attacks that > are not in keeping with the Ubuntu code of conduct. I encourage people to > ask questions of their leaders in the community, but not to slander them > without evidence. > > Mark > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > -- Chandra Sekar.S e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://tuxychandru.blogspot.com/ We choose the brand of our Mobile Phone, Motorbike, Car, Shirt, Shoe, Bread, etc. Then why not the brand of our OS too? Pre-loading and forcing Vista on new laptops kills consumers' choice. Fight for choice of OS just as there is for the Hard Disk capacity in new laptops.
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss