The problem is it leaves to many holes open. What if Ubuntu wants to charge Linux Mint for the right to have it's users pull debs from the Ubuntu repos? Can they do that? Sure just because Ubuntu has never refused approval in the past does not mean that they wont do it in the future. Assurances from Canonical are nice, but are not enforceable. Canonical can put whatever is necessary in print to clear up any ambiguity.
I can understand if they are concerned about branding and things the user clearly see being labeled as Ubuntu. But is it ok to leave a string that reports to other software it is some Ubuntu version? Or text string that says "Ubuntu" is never seen by the end user, but is compiled into a binary? Are those OK, or will Canonical say you are violating their copyright or trademark?
The short answer is we don't know. The current licenses are vague and ambiguous. Technically they could go after a project and force them to pay, go to court, rebase, recompile or shut down. Some of it may not even be enforceable in court.
The bottom line is their should be no doubt about what Canonical says can and can not be done. They have intentionally plenty of room for doubt. It has taken 2 years to get this out of them. It could take 4 or 6 more years to get clarification on all the other points.
As a member of the "community" that discourages me from making any contributions to Ubuntu. I can't trust Ubuntu. I have no idea what their motives are and no idea how they might bludgeon other distros for using those binary deb files. Besides not being good for downstream distros, this is not good for Ubuntu.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
That is the problem
Date: 2015-07-16 02:28 pm (UTC)I can understand if they are concerned about branding and things the user clearly see being labeled as Ubuntu. But is it ok to leave a string that reports to other software it is some Ubuntu version? Or text string that says "Ubuntu" is never seen by the end user, but is compiled into a binary? Are those OK, or will Canonical say you are violating their copyright or trademark?
The short answer is we don't know. The current licenses are vague and ambiguous. Technically they could go after a project and force them to pay, go to court, rebase, recompile or shut down. Some of it may not even be enforceable in court.
The bottom line is their should be no doubt about what Canonical says can and can not be done. They have intentionally plenty of room for doubt. It has taken 2 years to get this out of them. It could take 4 or 6 more years to get clarification on all the other points.
As a member of the "community" that discourages me from making any contributions to Ubuntu. I can't trust Ubuntu. I have no idea what their motives are and no idea how they might bludgeon other distros for using those binary deb files. Besides not being good for downstream distros, this is not good for Ubuntu.