Manish Sinha <m...@manishsinha.net> wrote: >> Unfortunately it is not a "tale", its entirely true >> >> http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html > > I read the whole thing 10 times and still got no reference to "Ubuntu" apart > from UbuntuOne which in which community is not involved.
The whole thing is about canonical and Ubuntu would be affected. UbuntuOne is open core and canonical is exploiting the community brand name. UbuntuOne virtually includes Ubuntu The copyright assessment used by Canonical has strange clauses (see clause 6) This is very different from what FSF requires. > > So next time Nokia does something wrong, then Qt will be tagged "For all > those that go ga-ga over Qt". Even though Canonical funds Ubuntu and owns > the trademark, Ubuntu is more than just a Canonical project. I am not sure > how many people have contributed to it in their free time. The whole blog > post is about how Canonical handles copyright assignments and Ubuntu > community was not involved in drafting this policy. Qt was open core many years ago. Now it has clearer commitment to FOSS development. > I am still wondering how Ubuntu came into picture? Just because Canonical is > a sponsor doesnt cut the argument. Even Microsoft is a sponsor of Apache > Foundation. I am pasting a relevant part of the OP's remarks ( in the discussion at http://www.ilug-cal.info/mailman/listinfo/linux-discussion ) for things not answered. It should be RELEVANT for all Ubuntu contributors. ____________________________________________ _________________________________ The Argument - Ubuntu is not Canonical. There are *many* contributors in Ubuntu who are *not* with Canonical, but volunteers. So no need to tar-n-feather it, for "imaginary" faults / fallings of Canonical's Policies. Rebuttal 1> Ubuntu is a distro, which is the point of present discussion. So there is little / no scope for discussing distro-agnostic upstream projects contributed to by the Canonical or other Ubuntu community members. Rebuttal 2> Canonical owns the Ubuntu trademark - http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy Which *strictly* forbids anyone (other than Canonical) to benefit from use / association of the U[buntu] name or form for *anything* commercial in nature. The above policy also states clearly "When a user downloads something called Ubuntu, they should know it comes from the Ubuntu project. This helps Ubuntu build a reputation that will not be damaged by confusion around what is, and isn't, Ubuntu... including people completely unfamiliar with Ubuntu" So, while Canonical as the holder of the trademark is in perfectly valid legal position to exercise their right to name a proprietary product as "UbuntuOne", they are in fact engaging in the act of misleading users, by choosing to ride piggyback on a brand built up by a huge global user community that proposes to be synonymous with software freedom. As a counterpoint, Landscape SaaS, which has a closed source backend (just like UbuntuOne) doesn't call itself UbuntuScape. Neither does the integral Launchpad service which was opened up (thanks to persistent demand from the FOSS community), call itself UbuntuPad or something. This is very much in line with not-confusing people about what is Ubuntu. Given that LaunchPad and Landscape predate the UbuntuOne (which is still in Beta), shows clearly that Canonical / Ubuntu *does* know how to "do-the-right-thing" (TM). This leads to the conclusion that the naming of UbuntuOne was *well-thought* strategy at Canonical to feed off the popularity of the Ubuntu project's brand which its champions claim is built on and by its community. In his Slashdot interview, 3 weeks after joining as Canonical COO, Matt Asay stated that the guiding principle would be to "make money because of the Ubuntu community, not from it.", It seems that UbuntuOne is quite a step on the other side. Rebuttal 3> The reason Ubuntu is so successful as a Desktop GNU/LinuX distro can summed up in 3 words - Usability, Usability and Usability. The "few" Canonical "owned" projects include *KEY* pieces of Ubuntu's distro infrastructure - http://www.canonical.com/contributors (see under Projects covered under Canonical's Contributor Agreement) Take away these "few" projects, and you end up with what? Definitely not the Ubuntu, a generation of users identify as "Linux" and software freedom (for those that care enough). Rebuttal 4> Unlike FSF, Canonical doesn't enunciate any clearly worded promise to *never* proprietorize or include inside a proprietary product / service the copyrights assigned to (it) in its Contributor Agreement - http://www.canonical.com/system/files/Canonical%20Contributor%20Agreement%2C%20ver%202.5.pdf. So when Shuttleworth, from his position as a business leader and champion of FOSS, makes statements that indicate a certain course of action, it becomes tough to keep on quietly watching from the sidelines. Rebuttal 5> This is not a "lame" debate for purists or people who prefer to indulge in politics rather than technology (even though Matt Asay stated in the Slashdot interview that he has little use of politics of FOSS). Leading developers like Aaron Seigo of KDE project (who's active and continued contributions are beyond question) has refused to sign the Canonical Agreement http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2010/09/copyright-assignments-gone-wild-or-why.html The question then is why was Aaron asked to sign it in the first place? Aaron works on the upstream KDE project. And the last time I checked, the list of software /projects listed on http://www.canonical.com/contributors didn't include KDE or Kubuntu. I would be happy if someone could point me what I happen to be missing here. So, the argument its "Canonical ONLY" doesn't seem to hold much water. Aaron's post clearly identifies the points that are not quite "going right" for the Agreement. In conclusion: The reaction to my post and tweets convinces me that that Shuttleworth may have hit the nail on the head when he spoke about tribalism (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/439), unfortunately for Shuttleworth (who doesn't really have a history of apologizing for his public mistakes / mis-steps), Aaron correctly say that one has to lie in the bed on has made (http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2010/07/having-made-our-beds-we-now-lie-in-them.html). It is a very balanced post, I suggest that people read and understand it instead of fanatical knee-jerk reactions. As always, having been using Ubuntu from 5.x series, its a great product, just like MacOSX is a great non-FOSS product. I would just love Canonical to correct its act. Thats all. ____________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Best A. Mani -- A. Mani ASL, CLC, AMS, CMS http://www.logicamani.co.cc -- ubuntu-in mailing list ubuntu-in@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-in