3 ms·

Came here to say this. Besides, Ubuntu has never been close to being a fully Free (Libre) distribution; like most other Linux based distros, it has a mix of Fre

Came here to say this. Besides, Ubuntu has never been close to being a fully Free (Libre) distribution; like most other Linux based distros, it has a mix of Free software and closed source software and firmware. I don't disagree with Mr. Garrett's opinion that Canonical is in the wrong here, rather I'd say he's practically giving them a pass. Not only does Canonical try to impose policies and demands that violate the licenses of the software they used to build their OS, they try to claim ownership of said software (by slapping their trademark on the finished bundle) and bully any entity that wishes to exercise the rights those licenses afford them.

onli 10y ago
Where did they ever do that? Where did they ever bully an entity that made a derivative without using the term Ubuntu, where did they wrongly not give permission, where did they state ownership wrongly to sabotage another project? The only times I saw something in that direction was with modified Ubuntu images being called Ubuntu, where their motivation is clear: protecting their image and their users. If that is their only goal, then I understand why they want to keep this tool to achieve it. I agree that the terms should be formulated clearer, and always having to ask canonical for a derivative is clearly them claiming rights they do not have. I'm not even sure they do that. If they did, would that mean they are a bully doing bad things? No.
- tajen 10y ago
  Bully: Canonical's stance also means that startups who create a business on an Ubuntu derivative (e.g. Elementary.io) may not be able to raise money, or they'll have to raise money at a discount, because of the huge risk of litigation and the risk of the results completely voiding their business. That Canonical hasn't done it yet doesn't mean they're not sabotaging an sector.
  - onli 10y ago
    That would only be true if those derivatives had not received a written approval by canonical. I believe elementary did, as did many others. That's my point: In practice it seems to be a non-issue.

onli 10y ago

Where did they ever do that? Where did they ever bully an entity that made a derivative without using the term Ubuntu, where did they wrongly not give permission, where did they state ownership wrongly to sabotage another project? The only times I saw something in that direction was with modified Ubuntu images being called Ubuntu, where their motivation is clear: protecting their image and their users. If that is their only goal, then I understand why they want to keep this tool to achieve it. I agree that the terms should be formulated clearer, and always having to ask canonical for a derivative is clearly them claiming rights they do not have. I'm not even sure they do that. If they did, would that mean they are a bully doing bad things? No.

tajen 10y ago
Bully: Canonical's stance also means that startups who create a business on an Ubuntu derivative (e.g. Elementary.io) may not be able to raise money, or they'll have to raise money at a discount, because of the huge risk of litigation and the risk of the results completely voiding their business. That Canonical hasn't done it yet doesn't mean they're not sabotaging an sector.
- onli 10y ago
  That would only be true if those derivatives had not received a written approval by canonical. I believe elementary did, as did many others. That's my point: In practice it seems to be a non-issue.