Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Is At Around 437 Employees, Pulled In $99M While Still Operating At A Loss

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    jacob People don’t want to fork, people want to work together. So the upstream need to be neutral ground. So no CLA.
    The upstream decides what it wants to do, that's also part of the freedom. If they want a CLA, then either 1. no one really cares and just gets along, or 2. someone forks it, establishes a neutral ground with no CLA required when the CLA opponents can work together, and puts the onus on the former upstream to either join in on the new terms, or risk becoming marginalised. The trouble is that there are many whiners who are on one hand incapable to actually execute a plan like that and are happy to just get a free ride on Canonical's development (which is perfectly fine, by the way), but at the same time they feel immensely entitled and want Canonical to change, to suit them personally. But that's just not how the world works. You don't like it, don't use it is the rule. In the FOSS world, we also have an alternative solution: you don't like it, fork it. But don't whine.

    Comment


    • #22
      jacob or 3. Just nope out of something as unethical as CLA. And that’s how Canonical got shafted during their CLA year.

      Today Canonical are back on track working on neutral upstreams. So it’s really just a matter of standing your ground. Neutral ground.

      Comment


      • #23
        Canonical corporate structure seems too weird to me.

        Are there ny geek deeply into financial and business stuff is able to explain all this? Please, it's something that blows my mind.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
          jacob or 3. Just nope out of something as unethical as CLA. And that’s how Canonical got shafted during their CLA year.

          Today Canonical are back on track working on neutral upstreams. So it’s really just a matter of standing your ground. Neutral ground.
          You've missed my point. There is no 3. No-one is going to say too bad, we can't have a CLA because such-and-such says so. By the way a CLA is not automatically unethical, the FSF has (or at least used to have) one too. The point being, an upstream project can institute a CLA if they wish, and they won't be going around asking everyone and their dog personally for permission. Within the established rules of the FOSS community, there are two and ONLY two possible avenues: either accept it, or fork it.

          Comment


          • #25
            jacob. The Canonical case proves my point. They failed on all CLA project. Every single one. The rest of the community didn’t drink the koolaid.

            And you need to revisit the FSF case. They never asked for CLA.

            Comment


            • #26
              airlied

              At least Canonical offers users a choice on what type of kernel they prefer, unlike RedHat...

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by msotirov
                Stocks don't work that way. Shareholders don't get shit as long as they don't sell their stocks. Technically Red Hat can use the money to invest in buying Canonical if they want to.
                Buying a company that hasn't made a profit after 15 years and has no value would seem like a bad business decision.

                Originally posted by jacob View Post

                Frankly I don't get this obsession with Canonical's CLAs. They only ever come into play if you want your code to be merged by Canonical. You can still develop patches, fork, maintain your own version etc. without having to worry about a single CLA.
                Because it shows a lack of commitment to open source unless it benefits the company. The company at some point in future can relicense the project and make future improvements/fixes done by them closed-source.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                  jacob. The Canonical case proves my point. They failed on all CLA project. Every single one. The rest of the community didn’t drink the koolaid.

                  And you need to revisit the FSF case. They never asked for CLA.
                  The FSF has a copyright assignment mechanism so it can make sure all code is under the GPL. That's probably where the confusion is, it's quite different to a contributor license agreement that Canonical has and still uses.

                  Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
                  airlied

                  At least Canonical offers users a choice on what type of kernel they prefer, unlike RedHat...
                  What would Red Hat gain from offering different types of kernels?

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Britoid copyright assignment is not CLA. The difference becomes even more obvious when look at the different motivations. FSF wants to defend GLP. CLA project want to circumvent GPL.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                      Britoid copyright assignment is not CLA. The difference becomes even more obvious when look at the different motivations. FSF wants to defend GLP. CLA project want to circumvent GPL.
                      That's what I meant.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X