4 ms·
The author does not claim it isn't open source, the author claims it doesn't comply with the four freedoms. > and will need to recompile the source code to cre
by jwfxpr 10y ago
The author does not claim it isn't open source, the author claims it doesn't comply with the four freedoms.
> and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.
I believe the author specifically calls out this document themselves, and emphasises the phrase above, as being the problematic portion. And while canonical does also say "For further information, please contact us (as set out below)", they have not clarified this concern despite being contacted and asked.
- nippples 10y agoCould this possibly refer to situations where the original binaries contain trademarked content?
- ckastner 10y agoI believe this is the only rational explanation. The other, non-trademark-containing software, is distributed under a FOSS license (both the source and the binary derivative), and I don't see how anyone could be legally forced to rebuild the binary. The copyright situation is clear, the legal leg this is standing on seems to be the trademark situation.
- mjg59 10y agoMark Shuttleworth has told me that they assert copyright over all their binaries and that this restriction is intended to apply regardless of trademarks.
- mamon 10y agoIt could, but there's probably another explanation: if you can't use original binaries then you can't point to Ubuntu package repositories in your own distro. Maintaining those repositories is a part of Canonical's competitive advantage, if anyone could use it then any distribution could easily get at least as good as Ubuntu, which would ruin the Canonical's business.
- taneq 10y agoBut if that's the whole argument then it's a gimme from the start, since Ubuntu includes non-free driver blobs and the like. They prioritise utility over "free software purity".