Sooooooo....I'm not sure if you are massively misinformed, a troll or simply trying to spread misinformation. I'll assume you are misinformed as it seems the mo

Sooooooo....I'm not sure if you are massively misinformed, a troll or simply trying to spread misinformation. I'll assume you are misinformed as it seems the most charitable. >>Canonical can't force any other project to use Mir. So, what are you saying? >Yes they can, Canonical can force adoption with their user base. Ubuntu has made itself the defacto distribution. Denying that canonical can't force adoption of a standard in linux is almost as bad as denying microsoft can't force the adoption of a standard in general. Lookout everybody! Here comes C# and .net! choo choo. Uh, no. Of course Canonical decides, to a large degree, what goes in Ubuntu. Though the community chooses this as well. The entire repository system is setup to allow someone with interest and access to put put something in and make it available. Install Erlang (sudo apt-get install erlang). It's there, but it isn't in Ubuntu (as are literally thousands of other packages). And, again, Canonical CANNOT force another project to use something. Every project, even Ubuntu derivatives, are free to choose. Otherwise you'd see Mint with Unity instead of Mate and Cinnamon. And you think Fedora is going to give a rats ass what Canonical says? Heck, look at GNOME these days, they are doing things counter to Ubuntu out of spite. >>Any open source project can be forked. So, what are you saying? >Actually no, they can't. Freely licensed open source projects (FOSS) definitely can! But the CCA is not GPL compatible. Worse, it's not clear exactly what Canonical can do with the CCA. The CCA gives canonical the right to change the license at whim. To be honest, this is fear, uncertainty, and doubt. but no spreading necessary. Canonical changed to a new, not well understood license, which gave them permission to change to other licenses. F I don't trust canonical, U I'm not certain exactly what they can do with that license D and I doubt it's anything good. Shoe fits The person below already said this, but the CCA is not a licence; it is an agreement between contributor and entity (this entity being Canonical). ALL THE CODE IS STILL GPL (look it up)! >>Canonical suing linux END users? What? What are you trying to say here? >I have a feeling that if any group of developers actively deprived Canonical of it's control over any of the projects by forking them and becoming more popular, they would manipulate the terms of their license, and sue the party that forked the repository. This was speculation, I have no idea to be honest what they are capable of. Of course, I wouldn't be worried at ALL if they were just using the freaking GPL. Hope that answered your questions. Uh, they are using the freaking GPL. ALL THE CODE IS GPL (look it up)! Every project Canonical has released is either GPLv2 or v3. So which was it, just curious. Misinformed, a troll or willfully spreading misinformation?