No License Needed For Kubuntu Derivatives

[Vim_User]

It allows trademark enforcement. But it doesn't allow this specific rule

With GPL you can always say "I forked that project to create this".
Indicating or implying were your code orginates from would include the
copyrightheaders in the sourcecode. Removing those could be seen as
claiming copyright of the things wou don't own wich means a very real
risk that the real copytightholder sues you.

The GPL only applies to the binaries themselves, but a package in the DEB format usually does not simply contain binaries only. As long as they claim copyright on the packages containing their IP there is nothing the GPL can do.

[startzz]

Well, solution is very easy, products licenses just need to include something like "this product - source code, binaries, forked things and everything else is free and cannot be charged for", how hard is that.

[Pajn]

Well, solution is very easy, products licenses just need to include something like "this product - source code, binaries, forked things and everything else is free and cannot be charged for", how hard is that.

Well then it isn't open source any more, but sure such licenses exists.
Aladdin Free Public License is one example.

[GreatEmerald]

With GPL you can always say "I forked that project to create this".
Indicating or implying were your code orginates from would include the
copyrightheaders in the sourcecode. Removing those could be seen as
claiming copyright of the things wou don't own wich means a very real
risk that the real copytightholder sues you.

That's an interesting view, but I'm pretty sure that in that case trademarks do not apply. Canonical can't sue you for trademark infringement if you kept a line saying "code copyright X, Y, Z, Canonical, foo, bar", because that by no means can be interpreted as some sort of endorsement or trying to fake a product.

[allenmaher]

Me too, and I also like the HUD brought up by the Alt key too. They should have just taken Wayland Minor fragmentations aren't problems, but when the display servers cause fragmentation, uh... oh... Unless they can turn Mir into Wayland.

If they had used wayland they would still be stuck writing a display server and compositor for Unity since wayland is just a protocol, one that mir could add later (see the mirspec https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Mir/Spec).

Why are people shocked that a small charge is levied for another group that uses ubuntu binaries and servers? GPL protects source not binaries. RHEL has been charging for years and I don't see a steady stream of hate here. Seriously the anti ubuntu people just need to calm down and think rationally about things.

Mind you the articles on this site do thier best to enflame anti ubuntu sentiment... so it is understandable that the formus might be likewise minded.

[indigo196]

So does all direct Ubuntu derivatives and all the derivatives of the derivatives.

The difference is that all the other derivatives you mention put their modifications or additions into the Ubuntu archives and become part of the Ubuntu project, and are therefore covered by the existing grant that allows for the unmodified distribution of Ubuntu’s binary form. Unlike Ubuntu flavors such as Kubuntu and Xubuntu, Linux Mint's development happens outside of the Ubuntu project, both Mint's modifications to Ubuntu packages as well as the original work created for Linux Mint are kept separate from the Ubuntu archives.

If they had used wayland they would still be stuck writing a display server and compositor for Unity since wayland is just a protocol, one that mir could add later (see the mirspec https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Mir/Spec).

Why are people shocked that a small charge is levied for another group that uses ubuntu binaries and servers? GPL protects source not binaries. RHEL has been charging for years and I don't see a steady stream of hate here. Seriously the anti ubuntu people just need to calm down and think rationally about things.

Mind you the articles on this site do thier best to enflame anti ubuntu sentiment... so it is understandable that the formus might be likewise minded.

Yeah... given what others are asserting here -- that the GPL covers the source and the binaries Red Hat would have no ability to control the redistribution of their binary bits.

[dee.]

Ah, people debating this thing, bringing up the same Red Hat/CentOS comparisons I heard last from vim_user 4 months ago.

People, go read this 4 months old thread, lest we have to rehash everything here again

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?90963-Ubuntu-wants-to-restrict-derivatives-using-their-repositories-to-prevent-competition

Red Hat Terms of Use

Red Hat Portals and Content.

Through various Red Hat websites and portals, including but not limited to Red Hat Network, the Red Hat JBoss Customer Support Portal, and the Red Hat Customer Portal (collectively, "Red Hat Portals"), Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") provides you?as a Red Hat customer?with access to a variety of software, services, web pages, text, documents, and other works of authorship, images, graphics, audio and video content, forums, discussion groups, blogs, and other content (collectively, the Red Hat Portals and foregoing content are referred to as "Red Hat Content").
Seems to me like those terms of use do not refer to the actual GPL-licensed software per se. I'm not familiar enough with the inner workings of Red Hat to say anything definitive here, but seems to me that it's an entirely different situation from what Canonical is attempting. Red Hat doesn't seem to be placing these terms of use on actual binaries of GPL software, but rather on their web services, trademarked content and such.

Also the terms seem to be provisioned against GPL and other licenses, giving them precedence:

Some Red Hat Content may have additional terms, license agreements, privacy terms, export terms, subscription agreements, or other terms and conditions ("Additional Terms") that apply to your access to or use of the applicable Red Hat Content. In the event of a conflict, inconsistency, or difference between these Terms of Use and the Additional Terms, the Additional Terms will control.

Original Distrowatch article with Clem's comment also quoted in that thread:

Third, and I think this is a point other Linux news websites are ignoring, Clem claims he has been asked by Canonical's legal department to license the binary packages used by Ubuntu. To me this is a scary thought. Ubuntu is a base distribution for many projects, some of them (such as Mint and Kubuntu) are quite successful. Clem's statement makes me wonder if Canonical has approached other open source projects about licensing the right to access Ubuntu's package repositories. If so, what might follow? Would derivative distributions need to pay to use Canonical's packages? How would Canonical enforce such a policy, with lawyers, by blocking access to the repositories if a user isn't using Genuine Ubuntu? Canonical would certainly have the right to restrict access to its packages, they are on Canonical's servers after all. However, most Linux distributions are quite open about allowing anyone to access their software repositories and I wonder if Canonical might be acting in a short-sighted manner if they are trying to license access.

With these thoughts in mind I contacted Canonical and asked if they could shed any light on the issue. At the time of writing I have not received a reply. An e-mail to the Linux Mint project asking for details yielded much better results. Clement Lefebvre responded the following day and, while he wasn't able to go into specific details as talks with Canonical are still on-going, he was able to share a few pieces of information. When asked if Canonical was hoping to collect a fee for using their binary packages, Clem responded, "Money isn't a primary concern. Although the original fee was in the hundreds of thousands pounds, it was easily reduced to a single digit figure. The licensing aims at restricting what Mint can and cannot do, mostly in relation to the OEM market, to prevent Mint from competing with Canonical in front of the same commercial partners."

Clem went on to indicate Canonical has not offered any threats nor discussed enforcing any licensing terms. 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). With that said, Ubuntu is one of Mint's major components and it adds value to our project. If we're able to please Canonical without harming Linux Mint, then we're interested in looking into it. As negative as this may sound, this is neither urgent nor conflictual. It's a rare occasion for Canonical and Linux Mint to talk with one another and although there are disagreements on the validity of the claim, things have been going quite well between the two distributions and both projects are looking for a solution that pleases all parties."

Also, relevant passages of GPL were also in that thread:

GPLv3 states:

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

Also, a lot of whining and special pleading from a certain Phoronix user - not naming any names - was also in that thread, so in that aspect, it differs very little from this one

[startzz]

Well then it isn't open source any more, but sure such licenses exists.
Aladdin Free Public License is one example.

That would still be open source, it wouldnt change anything. The only thing that would change would be that if you want to sell something or whatever, you must write it yourself, because now you are not writing anything, you just take other products and put it together.

[Vim_User]

Also, relevant passages of GPL were also in that thread

So please tell us how those parts of the GPL apply to Canonical's trademarks and IP.

[GreatEmerald]

So please tell us how those parts of the GPL apply to Canonical's trademarks and IP.

It shouldn't apply to trademarks, and there is no such thing as IP.