Well, the FSF statement does say that this is only "the first update emerging from that process" and that the work will continue with Canonical.
I think everyone agree here that improvements should still be made to the policy, but figuring out a sensible lawyer-proof wording that would both protect the Ubuntu copyright from abuses and guarantee sufficient freedom to the community is far from an easy task.
In the mean time, I'm not aware of any case where Canonical refused to "approve" an Ubuntu based work done by the community. Ok, it's a shame to even have to ask Canonical, but do we have an example where an arguably "legitimate" derived project was forcefully shot down by Canonical?
I just see no objective reason to not trust that Canonical is acting in good faith here.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at nvidia. Ex-biologist. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon and Bluesky.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-07-15 09:52 pm (UTC)I think everyone agree here that improvements should still be made to the policy, but figuring out a sensible lawyer-proof wording that would both protect the Ubuntu copyright from abuses and guarantee sufficient freedom to the community is far from an easy task.
In the mean time, I'm not aware of any case where Canonical refused to "approve" an Ubuntu based work done by the community. Ok, it's a shame to even have to ask Canonical, but do we have an example where an arguably "legitimate" derived project was forcefully shot down by Canonical?
I just see no objective reason to not trust that Canonical is acting in good faith here.