9 ms·

Canonical, Ltd. On Record: Seeking Open Core

101 points by donaq 16y ago

djacobs 16y ago
I'm not intimately familiar with the details of this debate. So I have the following semi-organized line of thought, and I'd love feedback. This line of thought comes from curiosity, not because of an agenda. I really don't know what tack I should be taking here, so insight is welcome. Is there a problem with a company taking source code that I've licensed as free to use (code that I haven't bothered to make consumer-friendly, just well-written) and then turn that into a viable product, where the core of the product--my core--is very much open source? If not this way, then how will the vast majority of open-source products find acceptable use to the everyday consumer in the market of applications? It seems to me like many open source programs don't strive to improve the user experience, at least very rapidly. For example, OpenOffice (to me) could use a lot of tweaking, at least in GNOME. For such an open product, I can't modify very much about the interface as a user. Of course, I could go in and recode part of the application to my liking. But I probably don't want to expend that kind of effort just to get a suitable (to me) looking product. Evolution also comes to mind. There are changes that I find obvious and pressing--appearance settings, more minimalist interface, better interface with an external contacts manager--but have yet to improve. Where will the impetus for these kinds of changes come from if there is no monetary incentive? If allowing a company to add proprietary UI goodness on top of an open source core means that we get solid products with a secure, beautiful, open base, what is not to like? If a developer can develop solid, clean libraries and then license his product for other companies to follow through with design that he doesn't want to do, why not support his decision to do so? Especially in an arena where standards and interoperability are valued, it seems like allowing a company to use open source code in its proprietary software won't harm data portability or open source ideals. For example, say some startup X takes OpenOffice's core and redoes it using slick GTK and innovative UI elements. The company will likely fail unless its quasi-proprietary software supports open document format standards. (Interop with existing standards is likely key to success in current data processing markets.) If indeed it does support those standards, and I know what the core source code is, what do I care if the UI code is proprietary? I get a solid program out of it and can take my data elsewhere without conversion if I become dissatisfied. It seems to me like the alternative to a hybrid model is a developer-centric platform and ecosystem that lacks many end-users to develop for. I love Ubuntu because its commandline and developer tools are fantastic, really a pleasure to use. But I have maybe 10 friends who also use Linux. So I could develop useful applications for myself or other developers, but not for too many end users. Without compelling UI, this situation isn't likely to change, right? I know that Ubuntu is making headway in the UI department, and I think 10.10 is slick. Is that a result of the movement toward OpenCore described in this article?
- jdub 16y ago
  You don't have to have non-open-source components in order to make open source products attractive to consumers, enterprise, etc. "Open Core" is not the reason why Ubuntu is "making headway in the UI department". It's the work of a large community of developers, many of whom do not work for Canonical, and indeed, work for competing companies. "Open Core" generally involves a single controlling stakeholder, which almost always means no properly enfranchised co-developers, no developer community, no collaborative innovation, etc.
- Mithrandir 16y ago
  Generally, the reason why some vehemently hate proprietary software is on ethical and idealogical issues; some I agree with, others I don't. Notice how much more popular Ubuntu is than Fedora, a distro that is more strict against proprietary software, but is criticized for including firmware support. Very interesting.
- archangel_one 16y ago
  I generally agree with what you're saying, although I think OpenOffice is a bad example - for a long time Sun did require copyright assignment for it so that they could release StarOffice. This doesn't seem to have helped OOo at all - in fact it appears to me to have contributed to its very slow progress. StarOffice hasn't gone anywhere either so I don't think it's been good for either of them. I like the idea of a startup putting a slick frontend on OOo because it'd be just what I want - but it'd be a tough slog for them to make money from, so I'm not expecting to see it anytime soon.
- bad_user 16y ago
  I love Ubuntu because its commandline and developer tools are fantastic, really a pleasure to use Then you should give credit where credit is due: to Debian, not Ubuntu. I love Ubuntu for their UI breakthroughs, but I'm only tolerating them for stealing Debian's work as long as Ubuntu stays free (as in price). If you want to sell your Linux distribution, at least build it yourself. So I could develop useful applications for myself or other developers, but not for too many end users. If your app is so dependent on GTK+ as to be unportable to other platforms, you're doing it wrong.
jluxenberg 16y ago
UbuntuOne, integrated on nearly every menu of the desktop, ... might help Canonical, Ltd. make a few bucks? If you don't like it, fork it, right? Isn't that the main strength of F/OSS? For example, CentOS is a white-label fork of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The same argument could be applied to Canonical's inclusion of Adobe Air and Flash in Ubuntu. Canonical is targeting a market previous unserved by other Linux distros. To get to these users, the experience needs to be polished and complete. There's a reason that, for example, Slackware, isn't going to be installed by your grandmother...it's too difficult.
- emilsedgh 16y ago
  You cant fork a Company! But, really, why people bring the 'Ubuntu is polished' argument all the time? Noone is against it being user friendly. They can be user friendly AND upstream friendly. And their upstream happens to be the free software community. And they claim they respect it. And they dont.
  - ebtalley 16y ago
    Ubuntu is polished to a point, kind of like a ball of mud can be polished to a high sheen. There "are" issues that continue to plague Linux in the Desktop department. To say that Ubuntu is polished enough for grandma to really interact with the machine without root is silly IMHO.
    - hvs 16y ago
      Linux Mint polishes that ball of mud even more, but your point still stands, I think.
    - BCM43 16y ago
      > There "are" issues that continue to plague Linux in the Desktop department. I'd be interested in knowing what you are referring to here.
      - ebtalley 16y ago
macco 16y ago
I think Mark Shuttleworth is right, when he tries to improve the Ubuntu ecosystem. I needs more than code to have a great computing experience. People miss the point, when the critisize Canonical so often.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  What about this article makes you believe Shuttleworth is focused on "improving the Ubuntu ecosystem" with his position on copyright assignment? It seems to pretty clearly show focus on improving the Canonical bottom line, to me. Which is also fine...but, Open Source fans should be aware of what motivates the organizations they work with. Red Hat and Debian have a long history of choosing openness and freedom over control and profit (though Red Hat still manages to be the most profitable Linux vendor). Canonical has a less stellar record, generally speaking, with a history of unilateral decision-making, and questionable motives. Note that I'm not at all opposed to the idea of so-called "Open Core" software. Virtualmin and Cloudmin are effectively Open Core projects, with proprietary additions being where our profits come from. But, we don't have any non-employee contributors to speak of (we get a bugfix patch every three months or so, on average). Whereas Ubuntu is 99+% code written by non-employees. Their contributions to Gnome, arguably the most important single aspect of the famous Ubuntu "ease of use", are miniscule compared to Red Hat and several others. And, of course, I'm not saying that Canonical shouldn't be praised for their 1% contribution to Gnome. It's just that their contributions do not justify the level of control they desire over the community, and that the free software community should be highly suspicious when Canonical make these kinds of power grabs. In short, Canonical historically isn't all that great of a community member, and this is one more example of them putting the desires of Canonical above the desires of the Open Source community in importance. Open Core is fine, if they want to do it with their own entirely in-house written code. But, it sounds like they want the culture of Open Source to start shifting in the direction of corporate-led Open Source projects, even in situations where non-profits and communities are currently leading effectively (like Gnome).
  - 16y ago
Mithrandir 16y ago
It's too bad that Canonical has, in effect, surfed the wave of free software, but refused to be a integral part of it, as they really could be. It's disappointing that they are "open-source" but not free. Including Adobe Air and Flash in their repository is really disheartening, but so is UbuntuOne. I'm not exactly pro-Red Hat either... http://tinyurl.com/27x6c59 http://tinyurl.com/27x6c59 No bias here folks, I'm using Ubuntu right now! I also use Fedora, Trisquel, and gNewSense, but Ubuntu is my "main" OS. I also like how they've cleared up some of the cryptic messages in their software center (Licence: Unknown to Licence: Proprietary). I'm just very concerned about free software.
- sigzero 16y ago
  "Including Adobe Air and Flash in their repository is really disheartening, but so is UbuntuOne." I have never tried UbuntuOne...but if you want to reach more than geeks you have to have an easy way for Joe and Jane Public to get at those. Otherwise, you have lost.
  - Mithrandir 16y ago
    Correct, but we also must have ethics. If we throw those out with the trash, then we've lost a helluva lot more than money. I'm not against someone installing Adobe Air on their Ubuntu machine (that's their business.) But when we start encouraging people, and go out of our way to encourage people to use proprietary software, then that's not just a free boost for the company that owns the software, but it's also a step backwards to the days of no alternatives or free software.
    - twymer 16y ago
      I don't think they are encouraging it, they simply make it obviously available to those new (often not tech savvy) Linux users. The adamant promotion of strict adherence to FSF beliefs is fine, but it's not going to help the platform grow to anyone but geeks.
      - Mithrandir 16y ago
whichdokta 16y ago
The danger of individuals with vast pools of funding is that they can afford to cause havoc in the community & their bank accounts for years before finally giving up on ideas that are simply unsustainable inside the ecosystem we have grown&cared for for so long. Something to be said for a profit-imperative to keep conversations honest & feet on the ground. Canonical has grown a strong brand in huge swathes of previously Microsoft territory. They would do well to follow RedHat's example and trade on a reputation for competence&quality rather than trying to place their faith in various recipes of secret herbs&spice.
pohl 16y ago
...the copyleft itself...actually keeps us harmonious. How can this be said with a straight face in a most unharmonious essay that decries 1) the practice of adding copyright assignment (above & beyond the terms of the GPL) to a non-FSF entity and 2) suggests that the GPL is not sufficient and that additional promises must be made by that entity. Either the GPL is sufficient to keep participants harmonious or it isn't. This essay embodies everything that keeps the free software movement from greatness. I'm grateful that free software was there for me during the dark ages of computing, but I wish it could be more than an escape valve from monoculture. Alas, the movement is perpetually suspicious of those who want it to flourish. Edit: jdub, I appreciate your reply. Could you be more specific about exactly which statement of fact is incorrect? "This is factually incorrect" sounds ominous, but I don't see where you contradicted anything I wrote. Nothing about our perspectives seems mutually exclusive at all.
- jdub 16y ago
  Three comments that I regard as incorrect: Either the GPL is sufficient to keep participants harmonious or it isn't. This essay embodies everything that keeps the free software movement from greatness. Alas, the movement is perpetually suspicious of those who want it to flourish.
  - halostatue 16y ago
    That they are or are not correct is your opinion, not matters of fact. The statements above are also the OPs matters of opinion.
  - pohl 16y ago
    I had a hunch you were conflating the concepts of fact and opinion. At least I now know what you meant, though.
    - jdub 16y ago
      OK, I won't take the shortcut then: Your opinions are not supported by the facts. :-)
emilsedgh 16y ago
Whlie I agree with the whole article, there is something wrong with it. Nokia changed Qt's policy from dual-license, half-open model to a totally open, community based project, because they werent looking at Qt as a product to sell. TrollTech's product was Qt. They used dual-license model to sell it. And it was partially closed. Nokia's product is NOT Qt. Qt is a platform which they try to find partners, developers and community around it. They dont want to make money through Qt. They want Qt to be a perfect platform and complete transparency and openness is the way they achieve it.
iuguy 16y ago
In the last millenium I had a few emails trading with the author. The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway. Canonical don't conform to this definition of Free, instead they have something different, that probably works better for them. In a previous life I worked at an Open Source company and we had to put up with zealotry on a daily basis, both externally and internally. On the one hand the FSF see themselves as guardians of the Free Software Movement - a mantle nobody else seems to want to take up. On the other hand, sometimes they act like douches. This is one such time in which the douche element of the FSF comes up for air (in my opinion, and yours may differ, there doesn't appear to be a clear right of wrong). Canonical own Ubuntu. It's up to them to run it the way they want to. If they want copyright assignment under their terms, that's their choice, not the FSF's. If they don't like it they can always fork it, but of course their fork won't be nearly as popular. This implies that Kuhn wants to have his cake and eat it, or at least eat Canonical's cake and tell them how to mix the ingredients.
- jdub 16y ago
  Canonical do not own "Ubuntu" (that is, a combination of lots of other people's software). They do not require copyright assignment for every component of Ubuntu (because they don't own it). They require copyright assignment for a few of their own projects... which, yes, is entirely their prerogative. BUT: There are plenty of people in the FLOSS community who don't believe that's an optimal way to participate... and I'd point out that those people include FSF ("software freedom") folks, people who once also had copyright assignment policies, projects that have suffered from copyright assignment policies, etc. It's not just an FSF my-way-or-the-highway issue.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway. Canonical don't conform to this definition of Free, instead they have something different, that probably works better for them. The FSF have a Free Software Definition; similarly the OSF have an Open Source Definition. This is good, because it means that when someone says "free software" or "open source", we can all agree on what these terms mean.
mrud 16y ago
A reply from Alex Hudson http://www.alexhudson.com/2010/10/17/bkuhn-on-canonical/ http://www.alexhudson.com/2010/10/17/bkuhn-on-canonical/
igravious 16y ago
In the humanities, one way into a text is through close reading. So here goes (just the first paragraph mind you because this can get tiring). >>> I've written before about my deep skepticism regarding the true motives of Canonical, Ltd.'s advocacy and demand of for-profit corporate copyright assignment without promises to adhere to copyleft. There is nothing wrong with Canonical requiring copyright assignment. The FSF do it, SUN did it, I would guess Microsoft does it. It is not unusual for a corporation to be a for-profit entity. There is no way someone would do unpaid work for somebody else and get nothing in return unless they were a slave or forced to do so. How would it be even possible to contribute to a Canonical project if you are not part of Canonical if the codebase is not freely accessible or at least in some way open? >>> I've often asked Canonical employees, including Jono Bacon, Amanda Brock, Jane Silber, Mark Shuttleworth himself, and — in the comments of this very blog post — Matt Asay to explain (a) why exactly they demand copyright assignment on their projects, rather than merely having contributors agree to the GNU GPL formally (like projects such as Linux do), That's interesting because the issue of copyright assignment arose when SCO started the whole litigation thing against Linux (well, Linux companies). Also, again, canonical is a for-profit corp, Linux is a (as you say) project so you can't compare them. I wonder what the policy of the Linux Foundation is? >>> and (b) why, having received a contributor's copyright assignment, Canonical, Ltd. refuses to promise to keep the software copylefted and never proprietarize it (FSF, for example, has always done the latter in assignments). Why should they promise? It's not their job to promise such things. The, again, are a corporation and have to look after themselves. They are not the FSF which is as far as I remember, a charity. What does Redhat do? Or Novell? We know that SUN required copyright assignment for OOo so it's not unreasonable for corps to have this requirement. If your issue is with code being worked on by individuals not employed by Canonical, with that work then being used in non GPL projects and with the copyright assignment of that work being handed over to Canonical then fair enough - please show me how this happens and where. >>> When I ask these questions of Canonical, Ltd. employees, they invariably artfully change the subject. Seriously. Citation please.
mhw 16y ago
Anyone care to explain how Canonical requiring copyright assignment for contributions to their projects is different from Red Hat requiring a Contributor License Agreement for contributions to Spacewalk, their now-open-source Red Hat Network code-base? At first glance it seems that Canonical ask for copyright assignment and then 'grant a very broad license back', while Red Hat let the contributor retain copyright but ask for a similarly broad license for their use of the contribution. Other than the name in the copyright statement, it's difficult to see there's much difference in the control over downstream use of the contributed code, and it's potential for downstream (mis-)use that the original article seems to be primarily concerned about. Yes, the disparity between the contributor agreements is confusing and requires potential contributors to put their legal head on to work out what they're agreeing to for each project they want to contribute to. That's where the free-software/open-source licenses were a few years ago before efforts were made to catalogue them and reduce their number somewhat (largely by The Open Source Initiative, I seem to remember). And that seems to be the problem that Project Harmony is trying to tackle. So, are there real differences between these two instances? I'm having trouble spotting the objective difference between 'This set of policies has some flaws' in one case and 'copyright assignment intimidation tactics' in the other.
- rfontana 16y ago
  Red Hat no longer requires a CLA for contributions to Spacewalk. We realized it was a bad policy: https://www.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-devel/2010-August/msg00024.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-devel/2010-August/...
  - bkuhn 16y ago
    @rfontana, You should updated the SpaceWalk wiki to be clear. It still links to the old CLA. See: https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/wiki/PatchProcess https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/wiki/PatchProcess I am glad you changed the process, I'm going to update this.
    - rfontana 16y ago
      @bkuhn, that's generally the responsibility of Spacewalk project developers, of which I am not one. If anyone signs the CLA, we'll tear it up.

101 points by donaq 16y ago

I'm not intimately familiar with the details of this debate. So I have the following semi-organized line of thought, and I'd love feedback. This line of thought comes from curiosity, not because of an agenda. I really don't know what tack I should be taking here, so insight is welcome. Is there a problem with a company taking source code that I've licensed as free to use (code that I haven't bothered to make consumer-friendly, just well-written) and then turn that into a viable product, where the core of the product--my core--is very much open source? If not this way, then how will the vast majority of open-source products find acceptable use to the everyday consumer in the market of applications? It seems to me like many open source programs don't strive to improve the user experience, at least very rapidly. For example, OpenOffice (to me) could use a lot of tweaking, at least in GNOME. For such an open product, I can't modify very much about the interface as a user. Of course, I could go in and recode part of the application to my liking. But I probably don't want to expend that kind of effort just to get a suitable (to me) looking product. Evolution also comes to mind. There are changes that I find obvious and pressing--appearance settings, more minimalist interface, better interface with an external contacts manager--but have yet to improve. Where will the impetus for these kinds of changes come from if there is no monetary incentive? If allowing a company to add proprietary UI goodness on top of an open source core means that we get solid products with a secure, beautiful, open base, what is not to like? If a developer can develop solid, clean libraries and then license his product for other companies to follow through with design that he doesn't want to do, why not support his decision to do so? Especially in an arena where standards and interoperability are valued, it seems like allowing a company to use open source code in its proprietary software won't harm data portability or open source ideals. For example, say some startup X takes OpenOffice's core and redoes it using slick GTK and innovative UI elements. The company will likely fail unless its quasi-proprietary software supports open document format standards. (Interop with existing standards is likely key to success in current data processing markets.) If indeed it does support those standards, and I know what the core source code is, what do I care if the UI code is proprietary? I get a solid program out of it and can take my data elsewhere without conversion if I become dissatisfied. It seems to me like the alternative to a hybrid model is a developer-centric platform and ecosystem that lacks many end-users to develop for. I love Ubuntu because its commandline and developer tools are fantastic, really a pleasure to use. But I have maybe 10 friends who also use Linux. So I could develop useful applications for myself or other developers, but not for too many end users. Without compelling UI, this situation isn't likely to change, right? I know that Ubuntu is making headway in the UI department, and I think 10.10 is slick. Is that a result of the movement toward OpenCore described in this article?

jdub 16y ago
You don't have to have non-open-source components in order to make open source products attractive to consumers, enterprise, etc. "Open Core" is not the reason why Ubuntu is "making headway in the UI department". It's the work of a large community of developers, many of whom do not work for Canonical, and indeed, work for competing companies. "Open Core" generally involves a single controlling stakeholder, which almost always means no properly enfranchised co-developers, no developer community, no collaborative innovation, etc.
Mithrandir 16y ago
Generally, the reason why some vehemently hate proprietary software is on ethical and idealogical issues; some I agree with, others I don't. Notice how much more popular Ubuntu is than Fedora, a distro that is more strict against proprietary software, but is criticized for including firmware support. Very interesting.
archangel_one 16y ago
I generally agree with what you're saying, although I think OpenOffice is a bad example - for a long time Sun did require copyright assignment for it so that they could release StarOffice. This doesn't seem to have helped OOo at all - in fact it appears to me to have contributed to its very slow progress. StarOffice hasn't gone anywhere either so I don't think it's been good for either of them. I like the idea of a startup putting a slick frontend on OOo because it'd be just what I want - but it'd be a tough slog for them to make money from, so I'm not expecting to see it anytime soon.
bad_user 16y ago
I love Ubuntu because its commandline and developer tools are fantastic, really a pleasure to use Then you should give credit where credit is due: to Debian, not Ubuntu. I love Ubuntu for their UI breakthroughs, but I'm only tolerating them for stealing Debian's work as long as Ubuntu stays free (as in price). If you want to sell your Linux distribution, at least build it yourself. So I could develop useful applications for myself or other developers, but not for too many end users. If your app is so dependent on GTK+ as to be unportable to other platforms, you're doing it wrong.

jluxenberg 16y ago

UbuntuOne, integrated on nearly every menu of the desktop, ... might help Canonical, Ltd. make a few bucks? If you don't like it, fork it, right? Isn't that the main strength of F/OSS? For example, CentOS is a white-label fork of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The same argument could be applied to Canonical's inclusion of Adobe Air and Flash in Ubuntu. Canonical is targeting a market previous unserved by other Linux distros. To get to these users, the experience needs to be polished and complete. There's a reason that, for example, Slackware, isn't going to be installed by your grandmother...it's too difficult.

emilsedgh 16y ago
You cant fork a Company! But, really, why people bring the 'Ubuntu is polished' argument all the time? Noone is against it being user friendly. They can be user friendly AND upstream friendly. And their upstream happens to be the free software community. And they claim they respect it. And they dont.
- ebtalley 16y ago
  Ubuntu is polished to a point, kind of like a ball of mud can be polished to a high sheen. There "are" issues that continue to plague Linux in the Desktop department. To say that Ubuntu is polished enough for grandma to really interact with the machine without root is silly IMHO.
  - hvs 16y ago
    Linux Mint polishes that ball of mud even more, but your point still stands, I think.
  - BCM43 16y ago
    > There "are" issues that continue to plague Linux in the Desktop department. I'd be interested in knowing what you are referring to here.
    - ebtalley 16y ago

macco 16y ago

I think Mark Shuttleworth is right, when he tries to improve the Ubuntu ecosystem. I needs more than code to have a great computing experience. People miss the point, when the critisize Canonical so often.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
SwellJoe 16y ago
What about this article makes you believe Shuttleworth is focused on "improving the Ubuntu ecosystem" with his position on copyright assignment? It seems to pretty clearly show focus on improving the Canonical bottom line, to me. Which is also fine...but, Open Source fans should be aware of what motivates the organizations they work with. Red Hat and Debian have a long history of choosing openness and freedom over control and profit (though Red Hat still manages to be the most profitable Linux vendor). Canonical has a less stellar record, generally speaking, with a history of unilateral decision-making, and questionable motives. Note that I'm not at all opposed to the idea of so-called "Open Core" software. Virtualmin and Cloudmin are effectively Open Core projects, with proprietary additions being where our profits come from. But, we don't have any non-employee contributors to speak of (we get a bugfix patch every three months or so, on average). Whereas Ubuntu is 99+% code written by non-employees. Their contributions to Gnome, arguably the most important single aspect of the famous Ubuntu "ease of use", are miniscule compared to Red Hat and several others. And, of course, I'm not saying that Canonical shouldn't be praised for their 1% contribution to Gnome. It's just that their contributions do not justify the level of control they desire over the community, and that the free software community should be highly suspicious when Canonical make these kinds of power grabs. In short, Canonical historically isn't all that great of a community member, and this is one more example of them putting the desires of Canonical above the desires of the Open Source community in importance. Open Core is fine, if they want to do it with their own entirely in-house written code. But, it sounds like they want the culture of Open Source to start shifting in the direction of corporate-led Open Source projects, even in situations where non-profits and communities are currently leading effectively (like Gnome).
- 16y ago

Mithrandir 16y ago

It's too bad that Canonical has, in effect, surfed the wave of free software, but refused to be a integral part of it, as they really could be. It's disappointing that they are "open-source" but not free. Including Adobe Air and Flash in their repository is really disheartening, but so is UbuntuOne. I'm not exactly pro-Red Hat either... http://tinyurl.com/27x6c59 http://tinyurl.com/27x6c59 No bias here folks, I'm using Ubuntu right now! I also use Fedora, Trisquel, and gNewSense, but Ubuntu is my "main" OS. I also like how they've cleared up some of the cryptic messages in their software center (Licence: Unknown to Licence: Proprietary). I'm just very concerned about free software.

sigzero 16y ago
"Including Adobe Air and Flash in their repository is really disheartening, but so is UbuntuOne." I have never tried UbuntuOne...but if you want to reach more than geeks you have to have an easy way for Joe and Jane Public to get at those. Otherwise, you have lost.
- Mithrandir 16y ago
  Correct, but we also must have ethics. If we throw those out with the trash, then we've lost a helluva lot more than money. I'm not against someone installing Adobe Air on their Ubuntu machine (that's their business.) But when we start encouraging people, and go out of our way to encourage people to use proprietary software, then that's not just a free boost for the company that owns the software, but it's also a step backwards to the days of no alternatives or free software.
  - twymer 16y ago
    I don't think they are encouraging it, they simply make it obviously available to those new (often not tech savvy) Linux users. The adamant promotion of strict adherence to FSF beliefs is fine, but it's not going to help the platform grow to anyone but geeks.
    - Mithrandir 16y ago

whichdokta 16y ago

The danger of individuals with vast pools of funding is that they can afford to cause havoc in the community & their bank accounts for years before finally giving up on ideas that are simply unsustainable inside the ecosystem we have grown&cared for for so long. Something to be said for a profit-imperative to keep conversations honest & feet on the ground. Canonical has grown a strong brand in huge swathes of previously Microsoft territory. They would do well to follow RedHat's example and trade on a reputation for competence&quality rather than trying to place their faith in various recipes of secret herbs&spice.

pohl 16y ago

...the copyleft itself...actually keeps us harmonious. How can this be said with a straight face in a most unharmonious essay that decries 1) the practice of adding copyright assignment (above & beyond the terms of the GPL) to a non-FSF entity and 2) suggests that the GPL is not sufficient and that additional promises must be made by that entity. Either the GPL is sufficient to keep participants harmonious or it isn't. This essay embodies everything that keeps the free software movement from greatness. I'm grateful that free software was there for me during the dark ages of computing, but I wish it could be more than an escape valve from monoculture. Alas, the movement is perpetually suspicious of those who want it to flourish. Edit: jdub, I appreciate your reply. Could you be more specific about exactly which statement of fact is incorrect? "This is factually incorrect" sounds ominous, but I don't see where you contradicted anything I wrote. Nothing about our perspectives seems mutually exclusive at all.

jdub 16y ago
Three comments that I regard as incorrect: Either the GPL is sufficient to keep participants harmonious or it isn't. This essay embodies everything that keeps the free software movement from greatness. Alas, the movement is perpetually suspicious of those who want it to flourish.
- halostatue 16y ago
  That they are or are not correct is your opinion, not matters of fact. The statements above are also the OPs matters of opinion.
- pohl 16y ago
  I had a hunch you were conflating the concepts of fact and opinion. At least I now know what you meant, though.
  - jdub 16y ago
    OK, I won't take the shortcut then: Your opinions are not supported by the facts. :-)

emilsedgh 16y ago

Whlie I agree with the whole article, there is something wrong with it. Nokia changed Qt's policy from dual-license, half-open model to a totally open, community based project, because they werent looking at Qt as a product to sell. TrollTech's product was Qt. They used dual-license model to sell it. And it was partially closed. Nokia's product is NOT Qt. Qt is a platform which they try to find partners, developers and community around it. They dont want to make money through Qt. They want Qt to be a perfect platform and complete transparency and openness is the way they achieve it.

iuguy 16y ago

In the last millenium I had a few emails trading with the author. The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway. Canonical don't conform to this definition of Free, instead they have something different, that probably works better for them. In a previous life I worked at an Open Source company and we had to put up with zealotry on a daily basis, both externally and internally. On the one hand the FSF see themselves as guardians of the Free Software Movement - a mantle nobody else seems to want to take up. On the other hand, sometimes they act like douches. This is one such time in which the douche element of the FSF comes up for air (in my opinion, and yours may differ, there doesn't appear to be a clear right of wrong). Canonical own Ubuntu. It's up to them to run it the way they want to. If they want copyright assignment under their terms, that's their choice, not the FSF's. If they don't like it they can always fork it, but of course their fork won't be nearly as popular. This implies that Kuhn wants to have his cake and eat it, or at least eat Canonical's cake and tell them how to mix the ingredients.

jdub 16y ago
Canonical do not own "Ubuntu" (that is, a combination of lots of other people's software). They do not require copyright assignment for every component of Ubuntu (because they don't own it). They require copyright assignment for a few of their own projects... which, yes, is entirely their prerogative. BUT: There are plenty of people in the FLOSS community who don't believe that's an optimal way to participate... and I'd point out that those people include FSF ("software freedom") folks, people who once also had copyright assignment policies, projects that have suffered from copyright assignment policies, etc. It's not just an FSF my-way-or-the-highway issue.
cabalamat 16y ago
> The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway. Canonical don't conform to this definition of Free, instead they have something different, that probably works better for them. The FSF have a Free Software Definition; similarly the OSF have an Open Source Definition. This is good, because it means that when someone says "free software" or "open source", we can all agree on what these terms mean.

mrud 16y ago

A reply from Alex Hudson http://www.alexhudson.com/2010/10/17/bkuhn-on-canonical/ http://www.alexhudson.com/2010/10/17/bkuhn-on-canonical/

igravious 16y ago

In the humanities, one way into a text is through close reading. So here goes (just the first paragraph mind you because this can get tiring). >>> I've written before about my deep skepticism regarding the true motives of Canonical, Ltd.'s advocacy and demand of for-profit corporate copyright assignment without promises to adhere to copyleft. There is nothing wrong with Canonical requiring copyright assignment. The FSF do it, SUN did it, I would guess Microsoft does it. It is not unusual for a corporation to be a for-profit entity. There is no way someone would do unpaid work for somebody else and get nothing in return unless they were a slave or forced to do so. How would it be even possible to contribute to a Canonical project if you are not part of Canonical if the codebase is not freely accessible or at least in some way open? >>> I've often asked Canonical employees, including Jono Bacon, Amanda Brock, Jane Silber, Mark Shuttleworth himself, and — in the comments of this very blog post — Matt Asay to explain (a) why exactly they demand copyright assignment on their projects, rather than merely having contributors agree to the GNU GPL formally (like projects such as Linux do), That's interesting because the issue of copyright assignment arose when SCO started the whole litigation thing against Linux (well, Linux companies). Also, again, canonical is a for-profit corp, Linux is a (as you say) project so you can't compare them. I wonder what the policy of the Linux Foundation is? >>> and (b) why, having received a contributor's copyright assignment, Canonical, Ltd. refuses to promise to keep the software copylefted and never proprietarize it (FSF, for example, has always done the latter in assignments). Why should they promise? It's not their job to promise such things. The, again, are a corporation and have to look after themselves. They are not the FSF which is as far as I remember, a charity. What does Redhat do? Or Novell? We know that SUN required copyright assignment for OOo so it's not unreasonable for corps to have this requirement. If your issue is with code being worked on by individuals not employed by Canonical, with that work then being used in non GPL projects and with the copyright assignment of that work being handed over to Canonical then fair enough - please show me how this happens and where. >>> When I ask these questions of Canonical, Ltd. employees, they invariably artfully change the subject. Seriously. Citation please.

mhw 16y ago

Anyone care to explain how Canonical requiring copyright assignment for contributions to their projects is different from Red Hat requiring a Contributor License Agreement for contributions to Spacewalk, their now-open-source Red Hat Network code-base? At first glance it seems that Canonical ask for copyright assignment and then 'grant a very broad license back', while Red Hat let the contributor retain copyright but ask for a similarly broad license for their use of the contribution. Other than the name in the copyright statement, it's difficult to see there's much difference in the control over downstream use of the contributed code, and it's potential for downstream (mis-)use that the original article seems to be primarily concerned about. Yes, the disparity between the contributor agreements is confusing and requires potential contributors to put their legal head on to work out what they're agreeing to for each project they want to contribute to. That's where the free-software/open-source licenses were a few years ago before efforts were made to catalogue them and reduce their number somewhat (largely by The Open Source Initiative, I seem to remember). And that seems to be the problem that Project Harmony is trying to tackle. So, are there real differences between these two instances? I'm having trouble spotting the objective difference between 'This set of policies has some flaws' in one case and 'copyright assignment intimidation tactics' in the other.

rfontana 16y ago
Red Hat no longer requires a CLA for contributions to Spacewalk. We realized it was a bad policy: https://www.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-devel/2010-August/msg00024.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-devel/2010-August/...
- bkuhn 16y ago
  @rfontana, You should updated the SpaceWalk wiki to be clear. It still links to the old CLA. See: https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/wiki/PatchProcess https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/wiki/PatchProcess I am glad you changed the process, I'm going to update this.
  - rfontana 16y ago
    @bkuhn, that's generally the responsibility of Spacewalk project developers, of which I am not one. If anyone signs the CLA, we'll tear it up.