These legal documents basically create some discretionary ground from which Canonical could possibly launch a attack against a downstream user. We must trust Canonical with this discretion, as risky as it is; but know that if they ever where to launch a disreputable attack they would be placed alongside the likes of SCO, Oracle and Microsoft in having steeply negative and possibly unrecoverable moral reputation.
So there's still some cost to them, even if their legalese is verified as enforceable.
So far though, Canonical seems more interested in doing nothing at all for or against Free Software. So not really a great hazard; especially as the slower but more creative developments elsewhere come to undermined Ubuntu's desktop position over time.
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}
Software Bouncers
Date: 2015-07-16 01:52 am (UTC)So there's still some cost to them, even if their legalese is verified as enforceable.
So far though, Canonical seems more interested in doing nothing at all for or against Free Software. So not really a great hazard; especially as the slower but more creative developments elsewhere come to undermined Ubuntu's desktop position over time.