Originally posted by dee.
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
No License Needed For Kubuntu Derivatives
Collapse
X
-
-
What about remixes like elementary OS, Zorin OS, Bodhi Linux, PinguyOS, Netrunner, et alii? All the ones I've specifically named make use of Ubuntu's repositories. The vast majority of Ubuntu remixes do; one of the few I'm aware of that doesn't is Linux Deepin.
Status quo isn't of no value for Canonical (though it might be of little-to-no perceived value to Canonical). For one thing, when Canonical touts Ubuntu usage statistics, they are in part calculating that by active connections to Ubuntu's security servers (hence Linux Mint and the other remixes that use those servers are included in that calculation). Similarly, many of the remixes identify themselves as Ubuntu in their browser user-agent strings (including Linux Mint since around Mint 9), and thus are all conflated as 'Ubuntu' in reports like the Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report. Inadvertently encouraging Ubuntu remixes to become more independent by way of instituting a fee or licensing restrictions might have the unintended consequence of undermining some of Ubuntu's mind-share critical mass.
Perhaps an association of remix projects, partnered with companies like Blue Systems, could provide alternative packaging, and repositories for those packages, and thus mitigate these licensing issues.Last edited by eidolon; 17 February 2014, 01:11 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostCanonical's case has nothing to do with trademarks. Canonical is claiming that they can add restrictions to the binaries themselves, this meaning: not just binaries of software developed by Canonical, but everything in their repositories, 99.9% of which is developed by people other than Canonical - and in most cases, not even hosted by Canonical, due to mirrors.
Mint doesn't use any Ubuntu trademarks, they don't advertise being "derived from Ubuntu" as a part of their product image - and even if they did, that probably wouldn't even be sufficient for a trademark violation, as long as they didn't claim to be affiliated with Canonical or doing so as a part of some kind of sponsorship deal with Canonical.
Also, explain how is this not advertizing being derived from Ubuntu:Based on Debian and Ubuntu, it provides about 30,000 packages and one of the best software managers.
Comment
-
Basically Ubuntu has only around 1000 core packages (maybe now some more due to Mir), the rest are in maintained by the community (universe) and are mainly just mirrored Debian sid packages which get updates in case of problems. It would be a bad joke to require a licence to use those binary packages in derived distributions. I really like the work of the Ubuntu kernel developers, i recompile the kernels just with minimal modifications (AHCI static and sometimes extra hotfixes) but the rest of the packages are pretty boring for me. Basically every derived distro could change to Debian as base without huge problems and then Ubuntu would get even less money as I think the Ubuntu marker in the Firefox browser brings extra money from Google. Of course when somebody uses the unmodified Ubuntu they get even more money because of the Amazon search deal - something that i would disable at least in case i would use Unity. But basically i see no reason to require a licence to use binary packages from the Ubuntu repository, the difference to Debian is just too small. Mainly the mesa/binary 3d drivers are packaged differently and are incompatible with Debian.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostPlease show us where they claim that.
So why again is Mint's Firefox reporting to run on Ubuntu in its user-agent string and how is that even possible without using the Ubuntu trademark?
Also, explain how is this not advertizing being derived from Ubuntu:http://www.linuxmint.com/about.php
There's a whole lot of heat and not much light in this discussion so far, mainly because Canonical doesn't seem to be being at all clear about exactly what it's requiring from whom. It's really that lack of clarity that's the main problem here. If Canonical would at least state clearly what it thinks derivatives need its permission to do and why, it'd make things a lot clearer. It's not even clear whether they're talking about use of the Ubuntu trademarks, or use of the Ubuntu packages, or use of the Ubuntu package *repositories*, or what combination of those three.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AdamW View PostThere's a whole lot of heat and not much light in this discussion so far, mainly because Canonical doesn't seem to be being at all clear about exactly what it's requiring from whom. It's really that lack of clarity that's the main problem here. If Canonical would at least state clearly what it thinks derivatives need its permission to do and why, it'd make things a lot clearer. It's not even clear whether they're talking about use of the Ubuntu trademarks, or use of the Ubuntu packages, or use of the Ubuntu package *repositories*, or what combination of those three.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostClem claims he has been asked by Canonical's legal department to license the binary packages used by Ubuntu.
When I asked what Mint's plans were concerning the licensing deal Clem answered, "We don't think the claim is valid (i.e. that you can copyright the compilation of source into a binary, which is a deterministic process).
Originally posted by dee. View PostExcept they don't actually say it. They don't say anything directly about the Mint situation there, just lots of empty marketing-talk and corporate-speak.
Notice the clever doublespeak? They make it seem like they're addressing the actual issue, while keeping it very vague and not stating anything definite.
Nowhere in that article, not even once, do they actually clearly address or clarify what the license deal with Mint is actually about. Seems fishy to me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by chrisb View PostExactly. The output of a deterministic process is copyrightable.
A binary is under the same license as the source code, unless the source code allows relicensing the resulting binary. There is no open source license in existence that allows such a thing.
Clem's statement clearly shows he has no idea about how copyright and trademark law works,
so we can't rely on his interpretation of the situation - so if you really want to know what he was asked to licence, why don't you just contact him directly and ask him for a copy of the licence that he had been asked to sign?
"Trademarks and Copyrights are the legal tools provided to us for safeguarding those reputations, and it?s part of Canonical?s mandate within the Ubuntu project to use those tools appropriately, balancing the needs of all those involved in making Ubuntu. Canonical already provides a license for the use of these to the Ubuntu project and all of its distributions, including Ubuntu itself as well as those flavors that are developed in collaboration with it."
It has already been stated that the license deal Canonical attempts to enforce on Mint is one that would prevent Mint from competing with Canonical on the OEM market. It would limit, in a very real and commercial way, what Mint is allowed to do as a distribution. This doesn't sound like "oh we just have to do this to protect our trademark", this sounds more like "we're worried you're getting too popular and want to prevent you from competing with us by legal means".
Comment
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostIt is not if you do not own the copyright to the source material. For example, you can't take a GPL source code, compile it to a binary, then decide that you now own the binary and are allowed to license it under whatever, non-GPL license.
A binary is under the same license as the source code, unless the source code allows relicensing the resulting binary. There is no open source license in existence that allows such a thing.
Anyway, you are wrong that the output from compiling GPL source is not copyrightable - if Alice compiles GPL source into a binary, then that output belongs to her. The GPL is a *redistribution* license - it only applies if she chooses to redistribute the source or the compiled output. If she does not intend to redistribute, then the GPL does not apply, and she can do whatever she wants with the source or binaries - as long as she does not distribute them. If she does not distribute the compiled output but you take it and copy it anyway, then you are guilty of copyright infringement - you have infringed her copyright.
Originally posted by dee. View PostHe doesn't seem willing (or maybe not able) to share that information.
Originally posted by dee. View PostRight, none of that states clearly and unambiguously what they're demanding from Mint. The original distrowatch article with Clem's comment gave the impression that the license didn't apply to only trademarks, therefore Canonical should have clarified that.
Originally posted by dee. View PostIt has already been stated that the license deal Canonical attempts to enforce on Mint is one that would prevent Mint from competing with Canonical on the OEM market. It would limit, in a very real and commercial way, what Mint is allowed to do as a distribution. This doesn't sound like "oh we just have to do this to protect our trademark", this sounds more like "we're worried you're getting too popular and want to prevent you from competing with us by legal means".
Comment
Comment