Manish Sinha 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
