LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem [LWN.net]

LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem

Posted Sep 18, 2008 7:06 UTC (Thu) by gregwilkins (subscriber, #515)
In reply to: LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem by mcopple
Parent article: LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem

I think this criticism of canonical represents a pretty one-eye view of how what constitutes a contribution to open source. Patches are not the only way to contribute.

Canonical has put a huge effort into ubuntu and have made it one of the most easily consumable distributions of a vast amount of open source software. This exposure to users is the lifeblood of many projects.

It would be a fool who would try argue that the open source eco system would be better off without Canonical and ubuntu. If we are better off with them, then they must be contributing in somehow! So is the criticism that they are obliged to contribute more because they benefit from support contracts with users?

All users of open source software benefit from using it. We don't demand payment in cash or kind from our users, so why should we hold those that contribute in other ways to a higher standard?

To say that anybody is obliged to contribute back just devalues the gift that all contributions (code or otherwise) are!

To say that canonical is under some moral obligation to contribute developer time, is paramount to saying that we license our software freely so long as you don't get too big a benefit from it, in which case you are obliged to give in cash or kind! This is like the old ext.js license which was LGPL (unless you mades lots of money or were competative to ext.js)

That's not the deal! it's free! FREE F R E E !

Free as in freedom and that includes being freedom from moral obligations or guilt trips at the hands of those that think that only the kernel commits counts!

Canonical do contribute and even if they didn't it is wrong to say that they should.

(Log in to post comments)

LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem

Posted Sep 18, 2008 7:44 UTC (Thu) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link]

"Free riding happens with open source, news at 11". It would be great if Canonical poured even more of Mark Shuttleworth's money into various projects, but I think they're doing a pretty fine job in terms of making a product that is winning a lot of converts to Linux and open source. If they do less kernel work and more work on the distribution, isn't that simply taking advantage of the open source model? It's the concept of "comparative advantage": concentrate on what you do best.

Comparative advantage

Posted Sep 19, 2008 18:34 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Clarification of the economic principle of comparative advantage: it isn't "concentrate on what you do best"; it's "concentrate on what you do most better (than others do it)"

So even if Canonical can submit kernel patches better than it can distribute Linux, and even if Canonical can submit kernel patches better than anyone else, and even if Canonical can't distribute Linux as well as others, it may still be best for everyone if Canonical concentrates on distributing Linux.

What you compare is the difference between Canonical's and others' patch-submitting ability and the difference between Canonical's and others Linux-distributing abilities.