"Redhat never had issues such as this that Canonical did about licensing terms not being GPL friendly, which they have since fixed" Sorry, I don't think that c

"Redhat never had issues such as this that Canonical did about licensing terms not being GPL friendly, which they have since fixed" Sorry, I don't think that characterisation is entirely fair. First, the issues that were resolved was making wording clearer because the FSF was concerned that it was confusing. There was no fundamental changes to principles of the policy so there should be no implication that Canonical was somehow falling foul of GPL licensing. For clarity, as the post you linked to shows the FSF would like more done. Second, the comparison to RedHat is completely unfair because the two companies follow fundamentally different strategies. Ubuntu has a single code-base, RedHat has a commercial and a free code-base. This means Ubuntu has a single IP policy to deal with both commercial and free usage. Whereas you sign a standard commercial subscription agreement, or a different agreement if you use RHEL in other ways. For clarity, I'm not besmirching either approach, I'm explaining the context of difference [0]. Thanks for adding that they were fixed. I think you were generally trying to support this point: "I suspect quite a few Redhat employees will take strong offense to your comments on them not caring about Free Software" Which I fundamentally agree with you on. I've met lots of current and ex-RH people and they all care about Free Software. This is more broadly true. Generally, people don't put their careers in areas they don't care about. I've almost never met anyone in any of the commercial Open Source companies that doesn't care about Free Software. There might be lots of opinions and arguments, but everyone is trying to do the right thing. [0] As a disclosure I should point out that I was responsible for Canonical's IP policy until March of this year