9 Responses to “Community Council Statement on Canonical Package Licensing”

  1. Adi Says:

    While I and most of Ubuntu users respect your decisions, we will probably see more aggresivity from Linux Mint’s and others distributions communities towards Ubuntu community because of this.
    There are a lot of people that I encountered, that stopped using and recommending Ubuntu because of decisions like this because they think that Ubuntu is moving away from Linux community.
    I am not a lawyer to understand in depth of what you are trying to achieve, but it sounds more like you are telling Linux Mint’s owner to either sign your license, either stop using Ubuntu as a base of it’s Ubuntu-derivate distributions, which kind of goes against GPL and the term “open-source”.
    And probably most distro communities will understand it like this.

  2. Gabriel Bensen Says:

    The word “ubuntu” is taken from the African, Bantu language group. If one takes the trouble to understand the true meaning of the word, and,more particularly, the cultural responsibility which it defines, then it quickly becomes apparent that, by its very nature, ubuntu describes a paradigm in which trademarks and copyright are anathema to the principles and objectives of (the practice of) ubuntu. I find it rather distasteful how a software distribution can usurp the word “ubuntu” for itself, and as you say above, use it to define your image as “provider of fine software”, and yet you have paid no royalties for the use of so noble a word, and then, on top of it all, go making chocolate-coated threats about license, copyright and trademarks. Yes, very distasteful!

    Oh, and one more thing: when you go searching for a definition of ubuntu, please don’t use the one by Desmond Tutu; it was made for the benefit of a Western reporter and just doesn’t cut it.

  3. John Rogers Says:

    Last time I downloaded an Ubuntu ISO ubuntu.com redirected me to a download site hosted for free by a local university. I wonder what these donors will do if Canonical starts enforcing this “license”.

  4. Micheal Walls Says:

    I cannot see how this would be anything but negative for the Ubuntu community. For a “free, open source” community this makes absolutely no sense.

    Ubuntu would simply not exist if it was not for the Debian Community and it certainly would not exist the way it does without *countless* other Communities.. This is how Canonical and their Ubuntu Community would like to thank all the volunteers?

    It saddens me, truly as I have long pushed and advocated Ubuntu based on — apparently false — Community and ideals.

    Hopefully Valve can manage the SteamOS community more responsibly than Canonical has done with Ubuntu. At least Valve thanked the Debian community by providing *all* of their games to Debian volunteers for free.

    The way Canonical thanks the community? With legal threats, of course!

    Wow… Just… Wow. Total shame. You’ve certainly lost a long-time Community member, Canonical. Good job! 🙂

  5. Joshua Says:

    There is a sad mob mentality from some people against Ubuntu, and whatever the Ubuntu community does,
    they will interpret in their own personal way.

    Just like the poster below called “Gabriel Bensen” who refutes the use of copyright as something “un-ubuntu”.
    Little does he know that free software works thanks to copyright. Free software (such as GPL-licenced)
    is able to enforce the four freedoms thanks to copyright. Without copyright, the Linux kernel would be forked and
    forked versions could legally stay closed-source. Such things are common knowledge,
    and even the FSF has a page out it.

    A note to the mob: put your efforts in being constructive, and actually contribute to free software.
    The negativity is hurting everyone.

  6. Somewhat Reticent Says:

    Binaries are not trademarks; trademarks are not binaries. Linux_Mint users access Canonical’s repository servers directly; they don’t go through Linux Mint servers, and users aren’t being asked to accept a Canonical license.

  7. Diego Hawkins Says:

    Does Ubuntu, which is derived from Debian Linux, have a licensing agreement with Debian?

  8. lyz Says:

    Ubuntu does not use Debian’s packages, it recompiles all binaries and makes Ubuntu the contact point for bugs, etc so such a license is not necessary.

  9. Sebastian Says:

    Thats not correct. Ubuntu is a Debian derivative [1]. It does incoperate the “Debian” trademark (among many others like KDE, GNOME, Firefox, LibreOffice, Evolution, Abiword, Linux, etc) which *DO* have explicit redistribution-rules (including binary works which *use* there trademarks in Ubuntu). On top Ubuntu does take *packaging* patches direct from debian deb’s and *DOES* repackage binary deb’s [2] from debian. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) [3] apply:

    3. Derived Works – The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

    7. Distribution of License – The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

    Moreover I would suggest to grep for (TM) in the sources. A damn hell lot of code including application-names and artwork as shipped in Ubuntu has trademarks which EXPLICIT deny future limitations. If Canonical adds future limitations they violate ALL this trademarks and are REQUIRED to remove the trademarks, rename applications, etc.

    [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Census/Ubuntu
    [2] http://packaging.ubuntu.com/html/traditional-packaging.html
    [3] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

Leave a Reply

  • Subscribe!

  • Pages

  • Archives