> Matthew, you asked if you could make and distribute a personal project on Ubuntu, and we gave you all the rights needed to do so, along with our best wishes for the project.
This makes it crystal clear that Ubuntu is not free software. To distribute a derived work, anyone should have full permission in the universal grant of license to any recipient.
Yet you think it's not only appropriate that “HUNDREDS of people” should have to seek out special permission to redistribute derived works – presumably permission that can be refused at your sole option, because there's no grant of license that already exists – you incredibly think it's somehow a gracious act of exceptional magnanimity.
As the main article states plainly: if the works from which Ubuntu is derived had the same policy, Ubuntu would not exist. You are making the world less free, and crying tears about how mistreated *you* are!?
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}
Would like some help understanding software freedom?
Date: 2015-11-26 07:51 pm (UTC)This makes it crystal clear that Ubuntu is not free software. To distribute a derived work, anyone should have full permission in the universal grant of license to any recipient.
Yet you think it's not only appropriate that “HUNDREDS of people” should have to seek out special permission to redistribute derived works – presumably permission that can be refused at your sole option, because there's no grant of license that already exists – you incredibly think it's somehow a gracious act of exceptional magnanimity.
As the main article states plainly: if the works from which Ubuntu is derived had the same policy, Ubuntu would not exist. You are making the world less free, and crying tears about how mistreated *you* are!?