6 ms·

Many groups are trying to reuse Ubuntu recently. I'm thinking about Linux Mint and Elementary.io. One day, one new group will be more focussed on graphics and

by tajen 11y ago

Many groups are trying to reuse Ubuntu recently. I'm thinking about Linux Mint and Elementary.io. One day, one new group will be more focussed on graphics and hire UX designers, and publish a polished, paid version of Linux. As in, you can redistribute, but if you want to subscribe to the repository which contains the latest bugfixes and the awesome UI design upgrades, you'll have to pay - and this is perfectly legal with free software, even GPL. We've only avoided that until now because so many groups have a huge disdain to making money off products (which is an awesome value - but just a value). So it is understandable that Ubuntu tries to raise barriers of entry.

kuschku 11y ago
> One day, one new group will be more focussed on graphics and hire UX designers, and publish a polished, paid version of Linux. As in, you can redistribute, but if you want to subscribe to the repository which contains the latest bugfixes and the awesome UI design upgrades, you'll have to pay - and this is perfectly legal with free software, even GPL. We've only avoided that until now because so many groups have a huge disdain to making money off products (which is an awesome value - but just a value). That reminds me of what elementary did, with their forced payments.
- verbify 11y ago
  You don't have to pay for elementary - you just have to put in '0' as the amount you're paying. Recently I tried a bunch of Linux flavours, and it still pissed me off. No other distro forced me to do that. Elementary claim making software takes effort, but how much are they contributing upstream - to Debian or to the kernel creators? In the end, I ended up with Mint, which has a better UX anyway imo.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    > Recently I tried a bunch of Linux flavours, and it still pissed me off. No other distro forced me to do that. We are closing in on the definition of privilege here, aren't we? Being annoyed because you have to explicitly had to write (ok, update) a form to inform that you didn't want to pay?
    - baldfat 11y ago
      Opt Out never feels good.
      - reitanqild 11y ago
        But there is no rule that giving people an option to download something for free should also make them feel good, is it?
        baldfat 11y ago
        That is why I never send people to download.com or avoid like the plague sourceforge
        reitanqild 11y ago
        Sourceforge seems to be slowly getting out of the mess they created. download.com, yes, it is. Then again, elementary OS is completely different as not only do they package a complete distro but they also create and maintain multiple programs.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Because it deceives users, and makes them think they have to pay? Worse, users might even think their money goes towards "linux" – not that the money just ends up with devs who barely managed to write a desktop shell?
      - reitanqild 11y ago
        > not that the money just ends up with devs who barely managed to write a desktop shell? Aside from the fact that it is a very nice shell, what is this attitude (in a startup forum) that you shouldn't earn money?
        kuschku 11y ago
        The issue isn’t about making money, it’s about making money with something other people made. Imagine I’d take Google’s Android Apps, add a new icon and a new theme to them "DARK THEME GMAIL", for example, and then tell everyone what a great app I made and sell it for 5$. Most of what elementary is is a nice Linux distro – but just a distro, not even special support. You pay for a product, where most of it was not actually made by the people you pay. Is that fair? Is that even moral? No.
rpgmaker 11y ago
> So it is understandable that Ubuntu tries to raise barriers of entry. It's not understandable if they violate the GPL in the process (the point of the article).
malka 11y ago
The purpose of GPL is not to prevent people from earning money. It is so that you can always modify your software yourself, or that you can seek a better alternative because the standards are open.
- LeonidasXIV 11y ago
  > you can seek a better alternative because the standards are open. That's not really true, GPL says nothing about standards, you can create your own proprietary standard with your code covered under GPL. Funnily enough you can have GPL software and create a minefield of confusion like Oracle does with the OpenJDK which is GPL. I fully agree on the first point though. Sadly many people forget that.
ZenoArrow 11y ago
Ubuntu is based on Debian. If Debian acted the same way to 'raise barriers of entry', Ubuntu would be much worse off for it. If you're a Linux company, you don't have to restrict access to your code to make money, you can make money by offering something the community does not: support contracts. That's how Ubuntu makes its money now anyway (as far as I know), opening up access to the code will not affect that.

by tajen 11y ago

kuschku 11y ago

> One day, one new group will be more focussed on graphics and hire UX designers, and publish a polished, paid version of Linux. As in, you can redistribute, but if you want to subscribe to the repository which contains the latest bugfixes and the awesome UI design upgrades, you'll have to pay - and this is perfectly legal with free software, even GPL. We've only avoided that until now because so many groups have a huge disdain to making money off products (which is an awesome value - but just a value). That reminds me of what elementary did, with their forced payments.

verbify 11y ago
You don't have to pay for elementary - you just have to put in '0' as the amount you're paying. Recently I tried a bunch of Linux flavours, and it still pissed me off. No other distro forced me to do that. Elementary claim making software takes effort, but how much are they contributing upstream - to Debian or to the kernel creators? In the end, I ended up with Mint, which has a better UX anyway imo.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  > Recently I tried a bunch of Linux flavours, and it still pissed me off. No other distro forced me to do that. We are closing in on the definition of privilege here, aren't we? Being annoyed because you have to explicitly had to write (ok, update) a form to inform that you didn't want to pay?
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Opt Out never feels good.
    - reitanqild 11y ago
      But there is no rule that giving people an option to download something for free should also make them feel good, is it?
      - baldfat 11y ago
        That is why I never send people to download.com or avoid like the plague sourceforge
        reitanqild 11y ago
        Sourceforge seems to be slowly getting out of the mess they created. download.com, yes, it is. Then again, elementary OS is completely different as not only do they package a complete distro but they also create and maintain multiple programs.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Because it deceives users, and makes them think they have to pay? Worse, users might even think their money goes towards "linux" – not that the money just ends up with devs who barely managed to write a desktop shell?
    - reitanqild 11y ago
      > not that the money just ends up with devs who barely managed to write a desktop shell? Aside from the fact that it is a very nice shell, what is this attitude (in a startup forum) that you shouldn't earn money?
      - kuschku 11y ago
        The issue isn’t about making money, it’s about making money with something other people made. Imagine I’d take Google’s Android Apps, add a new icon and a new theme to them "DARK THEME GMAIL", for example, and then tell everyone what a great app I made and sell it for 5$. Most of what elementary is is a nice Linux distro – but just a distro, not even special support. You pay for a product, where most of it was not actually made by the people you pay. Is that fair? Is that even moral? No.

rpgmaker 11y ago

> So it is understandable that Ubuntu tries to raise barriers of entry. It's not understandable if they violate the GPL in the process (the point of the article).

malka 11y ago

The purpose of GPL is not to prevent people from earning money. It is so that you can always modify your software yourself, or that you can seek a better alternative because the standards are open.

LeonidasXIV 11y ago
> you can seek a better alternative because the standards are open. That's not really true, GPL says nothing about standards, you can create your own proprietary standard with your code covered under GPL. Funnily enough you can have GPL software and create a minefield of confusion like Oracle does with the OpenJDK which is GPL. I fully agree on the first point though. Sadly many people forget that.

ZenoArrow 11y ago

Ubuntu is based on Debian. If Debian acted the same way to 'raise barriers of entry', Ubuntu would be much worse off for it. If you're a Linux company, you don't have to restrict access to your code to make money, you can make money by offering something the community does not: support contracts. That's how Ubuntu makes its money now anyway (as far as I know), opening up access to the code will not affect that.