SteamOS Didn't Use Ubuntu Over Legal Issues

[Luke]

I'm already a KNOWN enemy of the state

You underestimate the power of law enforcement, and the tools they have at their disposal. If anything, not carrying a cell phone makes you more suspicious, and so more likely to be tracked.

Let them try-I also have a LOT of tools, a LOT of skills, and a LOT of training and experience at my disposal. Bosses can and do refuse to hire people who are not on facebook or don't carry phones, but you cannot be arrested for that, no matter what just happened. It's like refusing to consent to a bag search on the street-or more accurately like refusing to carry a bag in a known bag search environment. I am a very well known activist at the hard edge of things like Occupy, pro-Earth activism, and anticapitalism, so it's not a matter of avoiding suspicion, its a matter of expecting, preparing for, and defeating attempts at tracking.

Most street cops know little more about computers than how to log into Facebook or use the laptops their department furnishes. Easy, Apple-provided iPhone forensics don't help one bit with cracking an encrypted netbook that isn't an Apple device and doesn't run iOS. When it comes to cyber-warfare in the US, just about all law enforcement/security/governmental forces other than the military, the NSA, and the Secret Service are script kiddies. They get powerful tools from the owners of proprietary software-but these tools don't work when you don't posess their targets.

[smitty3268]

Let them try-I also have a LOT of tools, a LOT of skills, and a LOT of training and experience at my disposal.

Do you always check the bottom of your vehicle for attached tracking devices every time you use it? Because if you're really a target, not keeping a smartphone around is really nothing. It'd be childs play to stick a listening device in the walls of your residence.

[GreatEmerald]

first, unity7 is not really meant for tablet.

That's my point exactly. And no, I won't try Unity 8; I won't try anything, because Linux cannot turn off the screen of my tablet due to it not following specifications, and thus it's pointless to try anything for more than a test. Since I'm not interested in Unity, there is no point in me trying it.

I do have Gentoo installed on it for whenever I need something that runs only on Linux, but I only use it whenever it's plugged into the mains, otherwise the power draw is not worth it. It's also running XFCE, since my tablet has a stylus with hovering powers, and is weak enough that it only handles XFCE well enough.

second, yet another paranoid in the neighbourhood?

What?

They went with Gnome shell because it's default on Debian, I'm pretty sure.

That's my point exactly. Again. GNOME Shell is the default on Debian, thus it would be better supported than on Ubuntu. It might not actually be the case, but it doesn't matter what I or the others think; what matters is what Valve developers thought at the time.

[TheBlackCat]

Well, since you mention it, Canonical has demanded Mint for monetary compensation for the use of their repositories.

That's probably also the reason why Valve didn't go with Ubuntu, they didn't want to be dependent on a company that would be likely to cause them problems like that down the road.

I suspect it is either this, some trademark dispute, or a combination of the two. I could easily see Canonical saying something like "you can't use our servers unless you stamp a big 'Based on Ubuntu' notice everywhere", and Valve being unwilling to go along with it.

The other possible problem I can think of is with Ubuntu's handling of patent-encumbered codecs, although I don't know enough about how Debian handles them to say whether this is really a useful differentiating factor.

[Delgarde]

Only problem is this: both Shell and Unity are snails on Atom netbooks, as are all their forks when using x11 as the backend.

Can't speak for Unity, but Shell runs adequately on my elderly netbook... not as snappy as my much newer desktop, of course, but it's usable, and no worse than any other desktop I've tried running on that hardware.

[RoboJ1M]

Can't speak for Unity, but Shell runs adequately on my elderly netbook... not as snappy as my much newer desktop, of course, but it's usable, and no worse than any other desktop I've tried running on that hardware.

Unity works perfectly well and is more than quick enough on our original Atom netbook.
Only upgrade was a larger SSD to the original 20GB device it was shipped with.
The only situation I've found causes Ubuntu or Unity to run dog slow is a mechanical hard drive.
Which is the same with every OS ever.

[dee.]

I suspect it is either this, some trademark dispute, or a combination of the two. I could easily see Canonical saying something like "you can't use our servers unless you stamp a big 'Based on Ubuntu' notice everywhere", and Valve being unwilling to go along with it.

Currently, Canonical is trying to demand that Mint signs a "license" for the usage of their repositories. They're attempting to argue, that since they compiled those binaries, they have some kind of copyright claim to them, and that they get to place restrictions on their usage that are not in the software's original licenses. This is obviously a very stupid and potentially illegal move from Canonical.

The problem is that Canonical now wants to use these license terms to dictate what Mint can and cannot do, mostly in relation to the OEM market. They want to prevent Mint from competing against Canonical for the same OEM partners. This is problematic and against the GPL license. The GPL explicitly forbids adding these kinds of restrictions to GPL-licensed software.

I can imagine that something like that went over with Valve. But Valve is not Mint, Valve is big and succesful, they don't have to bow down to Canonical, so if Canonical tried to pull the same crap... why would Valve go for it? That'd be pointless, they wanted to make SteamOS because they want a free platform, free from the unilateral control of an arbitrary corporate entity - that's the very thing they wanted to get away from on the Windows side. Why escape the control of one corporation just to become a slave to another? Valve would never agree to a deal where Canonical would get to dictate to them how they're allowed to use their OS.

The other possible problem I can think of is with Ubuntu's handling of patent-encumbered codecs, although I don't know enough about how Debian handles them to say whether this is really a useful differentiating factor.

I don't think this is likely to be the problem. For one thing, Valve has enough money and influence to be able to license the codecs legally if needed, and for another, they wouldn't have had to use those codecs - basing on a distro doesn't mean you have to use everything they ship. They could have just taken Ubuntu and removed the codecs if that were the problem. No, I think it's much more likely that Canonical was making some outrageous demands that Valve was unwilling to accept.

[mrugiero]

Currently, Canonical is trying to demand that Mint signs a "license" for the usage of their repositories. They're attempting to argue, that since they compiled those binaries, they have some kind of copyright claim to them, and that they get to place restrictions on their usage that are not in the software's original licenses. This is obviously a very stupid and potentially illegal move from Canonical.

The problem is that Canonical now wants to use these license terms to dictate what Mint can and cannot do, mostly in relation to the OEM market. They want to prevent Mint from competing against Canonical for the same OEM partners. This is problematic and against the GPL license. The GPL explicitly forbids adding these kinds of restrictions to GPL-licensed software.

I can imagine that something like that went over with Valve. But Valve is not Mint, Valve is big and succesful, they don't have to bow down to Canonical, so if Canonical tried to pull the same crap... why would Valve go for it? That'd be pointless, they wanted to make SteamOS because they want a free platform, free from the unilateral control of an arbitrary corporate entity - that's the very thing they wanted to get away from on the Windows side. Why escape the control of one corporation just to become a slave to another? Valve would never agree to a deal where Canonical would get to dictate to them how they're allowed to use their OS.

Do you have a source for this? I'd like to read more on the subject.
Also, they don't have this rights according to the GPL, but if they use liberally licensed packages (which they do, as they are on the repos), there is kind of a loophole, as those licenses DO allow Canonical to impose extra restrictions to their builds.
Even more, they could consider the access to their repositories a service, for which they could impose conditions (although they can not do that for mirrors, so that problem is easy to fix just using one of the several mirrors out there by default).

[ninez]

Most street cops know little more about computers than how to log into Facebook or use the laptops their department furnishes. Easy, Apple-provided iPhone forensics don't help one bit with cracking an encrypted netbook that isn't an Apple device and doesn't run iOS. When it comes to cyber-warfare in the US, just about all law enforcement/security/governmental forces other than the military, the NSA, and the Secret Service are script kiddies. They get powerful tools from the owners of proprietary software-but these tools don't work when you don't posess their targets.

I'm not sure that i would consider the NSA/US Govt dumping $80 million USD for R&D of a Quantum computer tailored for cracking most (if not all) current available encryption, would fall into the category of them all being "script kiddies";

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2083760/report-nsa-looking-to-crack-all-encryption-with-quantum-computer.html

http://rt.com/usa/quantum-computer-nsa-encryption-100/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html?hpid=z1

if (more likely when) they have developed such a computer, by the sound of it, cracking even the most (historically) difficult encryption should be a breeze, due to 'quantum superposition';

Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system?such as an electron?exists partly in all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics).

..and being as quantum computers aren't limited to 0/1 (on/off) states, but instead has 'all possible states' - exposing semiprime numbers and the like (used in RSA for example) will likely take no time at all to crack at all. (ie: while current super-computers may take years, in theory, a Quantum computer should be able to crack encryption very fast / very little time, in comparison).

anyway, OT but i thought is was worth mentioning, as while it may be true there are a lot of script kiddies (in XYZ govt/institution), there also is a lot of serious work going on that maybe you weren't aware of. (well beyond the realm of what script kids can do, and frankly a bit scary).

[dyfet]

re: Legal reasons, Mint and SteamOS, reference

Do you have a source for this? I'd like to read more on the subject.
Also, they don't have this rights according to the GPL, but if they use liberally licensed packages (which they do, as they are on the repos), there is kind of a loophole, as those licenses DO allow Canonical to impose extra restrictions to their builds.
Even more, they could consider the access to their repositories a service, for which they could impose conditions (although they can not do that for mirrors, so that problem is easy to fix just using one of the several mirrors out there by default).

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20131209#qa is part of what he is referring to. This really did slip under the radar, and yes, they did try to shake down mint as well as demand where mint can or cannot offer their distribution. The terms of what they seem to be doing, I agree, seem to violate Canonical's right to redistribute GPL licensed software by adding downstream restrictions of their own. In fact I have been looking for further clarification also, because they currently redistribute packages for which I am a copyright holder, and I may find it legally nessisary to terminate their right to do so for violating the GNU GPL.