Discussion in 'General Computing' started by pane-free, Feb 16, 2014.
According to a Slashdot news aticle, this is questionable.
Very curious. That news blurb links to a "Community Council Statement on Canonical Package Licensing", but neither the news blurb nor the Canonical statement links to the actual license. I wonder why it's a big secret.
I'm guessing that they're trying to establish protection for the name Ubuntu, just as Red Hat protects its name. CentOS famously copies Red Hat's bread and butter and gives it away for free, but they laboriously scrub out each and every reference to Red Hat before they release it. Even on their web site and in literature, they refer to Red Hat vaguely, like their upstream provider.
It's very reasonable to protect trademarks, so if that's all this, I think it's a non-issue.
Richard Stallman Talks About Ubuntu
This is not important? As Fox says, "You decide!" LOL
It can be a slippery slope as this locked thread points out, people have very strong feelings about Ubuntu. I agree with all the points of that original post (except 8...doesn't really seem like an issue)
At this point I see it becoming more and more like Microsoft. Stallman hit the nail on the head in that video, I think it comes down to what a user wants from their machine, convenience or customization.
@KenJackson I don't think FSF supporters have an issue with brand protection. Red Hat still has a good reputation with the FOSS community because they actively help develop Fedora, arguably the most "open" of the popular GNU/Linux flavors, they also support CentOS (although it is community-driven) and contribute to the project: https://www.redhat.com/about/news/press-archive/2014/1/red-hat-and-centos-join-forces
On the flip side, Ubuntu tries to stay as closed as possible regarding licensing and source code. The website (and the installer last I check, its been a while since I used it) makes no mention of spyware or issues with redistribution yet the website does openly tout "free!" "open-source!" all over. The company is very hypocritical in "supporting" FOSS when it is convenient from a market perspective, but essentially pick and choose what FSF ideals they want to support and which they don't mind dropping in favor of profits, which comes down to the meat of the issue. At the end of the day Canonical is a business and profits trump all else. This is a good summary quote from LinuxBSDos.com:
@MickeyD -- thank you for thoughtful reply and for pointing out a thread I apparently missed this past summer while I was being, as Devyn said, "ghostly."
@KenJackson -- as you can surmise, a "non-issue" is in the eye of the beholder and influenced by what he may hold dear; just because one disagrees is no reason to "trivialize!"
Your original post didn't reference spyware, the subject of the video. I didn't know you were referencing all things Ubuntu when you posted a news blurb about one license issue.
I watched the video, and I fully agree with Stallman on spying. I have great appreciation for Stallman and the massive good impact he has had on software and the world of technology. (But I don't worship him, and I don't like the disdainful way he pronounces Linux.)
It sounds like MickeyD agrees with me on the licensing of the name. Though we still don't really know if that's the issue covered by that license since it seems to be secret.
Stallman is a bit of a purist and in reality hates ALL Linux.
He has definitely no concept of reality and is more or less a sad, bitter man IMHO.
His working in conjunction with The Huffington Post would make me believe he is nothing more than a hypocrite, The Huffington Post is totally fueled by Liberal Corporate interests, Microsoft, Apple and Google are some of their best donators.
We are speaking to ubuntu moreso than to FSF and/or one's opinion of Mr. Stallman. Thanks for your reply, however!
Separate names with a comma.