- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Will Canonical force Linux Mint to license Ubuntu binary packages?
I must admit that this story flew beneath my radar until I bumped into it in the DistroWatch Weekly article. I find the possibility of this quite chilling. Canonical has already generated a lot of ill will with Unity and search tracking, among other things. |
|
|
Comments (40)
20 earlier comments in the full thread.
Thank you number6x. Thank you Thank you Thank you.
Ah, English. I blame the govt public schools. But then, I blame everything on the govt public schools.
> But then, I blame everything on the govt public schools.
Well, when you have a 90% chance of being correct.... :)
Well, when you have a 90% chance of being correct.... :)
> You don't loose your job unless you release it from a cage. http://www.loseloose.com/
Lion... Here zookeeper, here zookeeper.
Lion... Here zookeeper, here zookeeper.
Sounds like they've changed the update process for LMDE since the last time I've used it (of course, when I used it Xfce was the only desktop choice). It seemed to be pretty much completely rolling back then. It sounds like their new approach isn't too different from that of SolydXK. They both use update snapshots to freeze updates at certain points that won't be broken.
I've been thinking of trying SolydX on some hardware or other to evaluate it. I doubt I'm going to check out LMDE again right away since they don't do an Xfce default version anymore. I like to have a polished default to fall back on, even if I decide to run some other window manager or desktop.
I've been thinking of trying SolydX on some hardware or other to evaluate it. I doubt I'm going to check out LMDE again right away since they don't do an Xfce default version anymore. I like to have a polished default to fall back on, even if I decide to run some other window manager or desktop.
While I agree that what Canonical is doing is not what Red Hat is doing, I don't believe it breaches the GPL in any way, shape or form. The GPL, and the Open Source definition in general, talk about free access to source code, not binaries. AFAICT, Canonical is free to charge whatever they want for binaries or repository access just as Red Hat is free to restrict access to them. What Canonical cannot do is prevent someone from taking their sources, compiling them, and distributing their own binaries much as CentOS does with Red Hat sources. Again, AFAICT, Canonical doesn't restrict anyone from doing this.
It's fair to debate the impact on downstream distros (not just Mint) and it's fair to also debate what this does to Ubuntu's relationship to an increasingly angry community. I know that if I was building a distro based on Ubuntu I would be looking at migrating to Debian very seriously.
It's fair to debate the impact on downstream distros (not just Mint) and it's fair to also debate what this does to Ubuntu's relationship to an increasingly angry community. I know that if I was building a distro based on Ubuntu I would be looking at migrating to Debian very seriously.
@catilyn,
>> It's fair to debate the impact on downstream distros (not just Mint) and it's fair to also debate what this does to Ubuntu's relationship to an increasingly angry community. I know that if I was building a distro based on Ubuntu I would be looking at migrating to Debian very seriously.
Although I wouldn't be so dismissive of sentiments such as Nixie Pixel's at her awesome http://youtu.be/KOF05L1tZaE youtube vid. Her words FOR Mint come in the 1rst third of the vid, and those AGAINST CanUbucomical's increasing "dark side" come ~1.5min after the funny RMS minivid and just before her ending pitch for ting.
2 more c's
>> It's fair to debate the impact on downstream distros (not just Mint) and it's fair to also debate what this does to Ubuntu's relationship to an increasingly angry community. I know that if I was building a distro based on Ubuntu I would be looking at migrating to Debian very seriously.
Although I wouldn't be so dismissive of sentiments such as Nixie Pixel's at her awesome http://youtu.be/KOF05L1tZaE youtube vid. Her words FOR Mint come in the 1rst third of the vid, and those AGAINST CanUbucomical's increasing "dark side" come ~1.5min after the funny RMS minivid and just before her ending pitch for ting.
2 more c's
It's also worth reflecting that the issues between source and binary is entirely different.
RMS's complaints are to do with control and freedom. Having access to source is what satisfies that need.
Access to binaries, however, is about cost, delivery and convenience. One could view the generation and supply of binaries a service since they can be easily produced from the source by users. Hosting of source is a cost that businesses have to cover in order to facilitate the freedoms required of free source and is the price they pay for the ability to use and modify them. That seems a fair thing to ask.
However, I don't see the same situation for compiled binaries.
Access to binaries, however, is about cost, delivery and convenience. One could view the generation and supply of binaries a service since they can be easily produced from the source by users. Hosting of source is a cost that businesses have to cover in order to facilitate the freedoms required of free source and is the price they pay for the ability to use and modify them. That seems a fair thing to ask.
However, I don't see the same situation for compiled binaries.
No need for misquoted religion skelband. there is no requirement for free source or a requirement to 'host'. Only to provide at request with compensation, and no restrictions on redistribution.
the requirement is to provide the source for a reasonable fee to cover cost of the media, shipping and handling, which, given internet downloads can be equated to being free. at least, charging extra for the source on an internet download would probably not be acceptable (except maybe for a micropayment to cover for the bandwidth cost.)
it doesn't look to me like skelband is misquoting anything here especially considering that hosting the source for free download is easier and cheaper than handling fulfillment via shipped media.
greetings, eMBee.
it doesn't look to me like skelband is misquoting anything here especially considering that hosting the source for free download is easier and cheaper than handling fulfillment via shipped media.
greetings, eMBee.
As most LXer readers likely realize, the Free Software Foundation has a GPL webpage http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL. The FSF's GPL webpage lists several further resources for its related software licenses, e.g.,
* Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU licenses
* How to use GNU licenses for your own software
* What to do if you see a violation of a GNU license
* List of Free Software Licenses
With this as a background:
One may then ask, Just what are RMS's complaints having to do with control and freedom ??
Among other fine online resources that directly address this question is the 'Quick Guide to GPLv3' link , found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html:
Then further down this page:
Note that 1) this specifically applies to GPL v3, and 2) MIcrosoft has been one of the principle "villains" of the FSF in the past.
Perhaps it is well-worth referencing and reviewing these above-quoted "sources" from the FSF, in light of any restrictions or runarounds to the GPL that Canonical Ltd would attempt to enact ??
Read the whole comment* Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU licenses
* How to use GNU licenses for your own software
* What to do if you see a violation of a GNU license
* List of Free Software Licenses
With this as a background:
Quoting:It's also worth reflecting that the issues between source and binary is entirely different. RMS's complaints are to do with control and freedom. Having access to source is what satisfies that need.
One may then ask, Just what are RMS's complaints having to do with control and freedom ??
Among other fine online resources that directly address this question is the 'Quick Guide to GPLv3' link , found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html:
Quoting:The Foundations of the GPL
Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four freedoms that every user should have:
* the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
* the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
* the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
* the freedom to share the changes you make.
Then further down this page:
Quoting:* Discriminatory patent deals: Microsoft has recently started telling people that they will not sue free software users for patent infringement—as long as you get the software from a vendor that's paying Microsoft for the privilege. Ultimately, Microsoft is trying to collect royalties for the use of free software, which interferes with users' freedom. No company should be able to do this.
Note that 1) this specifically applies to GPL v3, and 2) MIcrosoft has been one of the principle "villains" of the FSF in the past.
Perhaps it is well-worth referencing and reviewing these above-quoted "sources" from the FSF, in light of any restrictions or runarounds to the GPL that Canonical Ltd would attempt to enact ??
> However, I don't see the same situation for compiled binaries.
Agreed. However (you knew that was coming, right?), if the repositories are Canonical's way of of complying with the source code distribution requirement, they can't lock either the Mint developers or the Mint users out of their repositories, or charge them more than a nominal fee for access. They can lock them out of the binaries, but not the source code. Has Canonical set up alternative arrangements for meeting the source code requirement?
Agreed. However (you knew that was coming, right?), if the repositories are Canonical's way of of complying with the source code distribution requirement, they can't lock either the Mint developers or the Mint users out of their repositories, or charge them more than a nominal fee for access. They can lock them out of the binaries, but not the source code. Has Canonical set up alternative arrangements for meeting the source code requirement?
> No need for misquoted religion skelband. there is no requirement for free source or a requirement to 'host'.
Sorry, where did I say that exactly? Here is what I actually said:
"It's also worth reflecting that the issues between source and binary is entirely different. RMS's complaints are to do with control and freedom. Having access to source is what satisfies that need."
In other words you may not withhold source or your changes if you distribute the binaries. There is no objection to selling free and open software source *or* binary. But the source *must* be available.
That companies see a cost problem in providing free services for binary downloading to everyone is not at odds with the ideal of free (as in freedom) software.
Sorry, where did I say that exactly? Here is what I actually said:
"It's also worth reflecting that the issues between source and binary is entirely different. RMS's complaints are to do with control and freedom. Having access to source is what satisfies that need."
In other words you may not withhold source or your changes if you distribute the binaries. There is no objection to selling free and open software source *or* binary. But the source *must* be available.
That companies see a cost problem in providing free services for binary downloading to everyone is not at odds with the ideal of free (as in freedom) software.
The source must be available, but not without a cost, that requirement does not exist. Or go look at the cgarges you would have to pay for his documentation of said code. It is entirely reasonable to charge 200s or thousands of dollars for initial access, proven reasonable as they are the acts of the man himself.
it is reasonable to charge 200s or thousands of dollars for access to the binaries, as redhat for example is doing.
it is not reasonable to charge that much for the source on top of the binaries.
greetings, eMBee.
it is not reasonable to charge that much for the source on top of the binaries.
greetings, eMBee.
One extra nit to pick: The source must be machine-readable (i.e. not hardcopy only, not in a sound recording of binary ones and zeroes spoken in Navajo, etc.).
it also must be human-usable, not obfuscated, but in the form that you normally use to edit it.
greetings, eMBee.
greetings, eMBee.
Actually no, there is no defined requirement for that. Punch cards are a perfectly legitimate form of conveyance, given machine readable does not mandate that your machine is equiped to actually read it.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html wrote:
1. Source Code.
The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
note, that i didn't say "human-readable" as there may be tools to edit the source which store it in some binary form, like squeak/pharo smalltalk are doing, or the gui parts of NeXTSTEP/OS X apps.
greetings, eMBee.
preferred is a curiuos word, there is a quote from the princess bride that is most fitting here, and a question, prefered by whom? You may see it as implied, implied though levies no requirement.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post