SteamOS Didn't Use Ubuntu Over Legal Issues

[entropy]

For the non-german speakers, does the linked article explain which kind of legal issues there are?

No, there is no further information.

[Malizor]

now they want to be paid?

Source?
Ubuntu is Free software, no one can force you to pay Canonical to use/fork/distribute it.
The only Canonical power is about the trademark "Ubuntu" but Valve named its OS "Steam OS" so there is no problem here.

Also Mir can't be an explanation because Valve already maintains its own patched/up-to-date graphic stack for Steam OS, so they could have done the very same thing against Ubuntu. Same thing regarding the Kernel.
Beside, X will remains in standard Ubuntu repositories for at least as long as it will be in Debian.

I'm really curious about those alleged "Legal issues". I hope Gabe will give some more details.

[Kano]

They do not maintain an own gfx stack, they reused the Debian experimental mesa package with some lowered/removed depends. But that mesa package is not the best, maybe oibaf could help the Debian strike force a bit as he already packages what i need like vdpau drivers. Compared to the Ubuntu package the used Debian mesa also misses libapi which is needed to compile glamor. And thats needed for radeonsi (which is funnyly inside the mesa package).

[GreatEmerald]

"unclear legal situation concerning some additional components"? The only thing I can think of right now would be Unity. Maybe Valve didn't want to include Amazon ads into SteamOS by default, or maybe they didn't know whether Ubuntu would be OK if they changed Unity's hardcoded "Ubuntu Desktop" name to "SteamOS" or such. And then decided that instead of having to rely on a non-default configuration, it's just easier to use the upstream Debian...

[NothingMuchHereToSay]

I swear all these hate mongering Ubuntu h8rs are so friggin' stupid. Who the hell said that "Canonical wants to be paid"? If that's the case then Linux Mint has been leeching off of Ubuntu for so long I'm surprised that they haven't been sued over it since 2006.

Mark Shuttlworth must be some kind of idiot, and Ubuntu is going to die with his new direction, I'm sure just 4 years ago before all this nonsense with Unity they would've gladly let them use Ubuntu for Steam OS, now they want to be paid?

"Pay us to double our userbase and create games for it" It's not like Valve's not giving you any benefit, in fact what they're going to give you is more beneficial than money, a FUCKING SIGNIFICANT USERBASE. Not just some 1% bullshit.

If Canonical kept the same difference in a dominant form of a freakin' desktop that's universally better than the traditional way, then we would have absolutely NO reason for Linux Mint to exist. Ubuntu is more popular than ever btw. China's pretty much got an Ubuntu phone in production at the moment.

By the way, try using Linux Mint or Debian on a tablet, then tell me how much Unity sucks. "Oooo big icons, must be for a tablet!" Such a sad mentality that the majority of the world has these days. So far Windows 8 is the ONLY contendor that exceeds the requirements of a tablet interface, since it's Modern interface is much more than just having big friggin' icons..

[ua=42]

Huh. Legal not technical. Oh well, I bet we won't find out for years, if ever, the reason why.

[Malizor]

"unclear legal situation concerning some additional components"? The only thing I can think of right now would be Unity. Maybe Valve didn't want to include Amazon ads into SteamOS by default, or maybe they didn't know whether Ubuntu would be OK if they changed Unity's hardcoded "Ubuntu Desktop" name to "SteamOS" or such. And then decided that instead of having to rely on a non-default configuration, it's just easier to use the upstream Debian...

Good news for you: you can use whatever desktop you want on Ubuntu. Unity is just one of them.
And if you want to carefully select each package you install on your system, you can also do a net install as you would do on Debian.

So no, this is not a logical explanation.
Perhaps Valve engineers just prefer Debian (good for them in this case), but I can't imagine that there would be a legal issue by forking Ubuntu that would not also apply with Debian and any other distro.

[entropy]

Ubuntu components are not GPLv3, it is GPLv3(to you)+CLA(a broad license for Canonical). nobody sane likes to deal with a partner who reserves the right to be an A-hole.

Let's be kind.
You meant CLA-hole?

[dimko]

i thinks its over Mir

Hmmm... Could this be over the GPLv3? Some ubuntu components use the GPLv3 I believe (besides Mir I mean). I reserve the right to be completely wrong about this.

Problem probably with Mir.
Has has license that makes modifications of it's code property of Ubuntu and not compatible with GPL2. You can't just fork it.

[mrugiero]

Problem probably with Mir.
Has has license that makes modifications of it's code property of Ubuntu and not compatible with GPL2. You can't just fork it.

You can just fork it. Even with the CLA, the code you have access to is GPLv3, and you can fork it under the terms of GPLv3, and ONLY GPLv3, any code put in your fork need not to be under their CLA. The CLA is only valid for code you want to upstream. However, IIRC they stated they won't take forks kindly, and will break compatibility if such ever appear.