Yes, title is exaggeration, but danger is there. [LWN.net]

Yes, title is exaggeration, but danger is there.

Posted Oct 18, 2010 16:34 UTC (Mon) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)
In reply to: Kuhn: Canonical, Ltd. Finally On Record: Seeking Open Core by SEMW
Parent article: Kuhn: Canonical, Ltd. Finally On Record: Seeking Open Core

I agree my title was a bit of an exaggeration. I'd change it, but I am not sure that would clarify things, and probably would look strange. Based on feedback, I did add a note at the bottom of the post making it clear that this reading of these events is my opinion, not fact. The only thing that's absolutely true here is that Canonical, Ltd. is “leaving its options open” for “Open Core” and/or proprietary relicensing as a possibility.

As for the distinction between Open Core and proprietary relicensing, I think there are some subtle distinctions there. However, I have yet to see a company implement a pure “exception selling” model as RMS has proposed. Every example I've seen has never been purely that. Even if it starts that way, it moves toward an “Open Core” style over time. Based on the feedback of this blog post, I'm planning to write a more comprehensive post about this particular part of the issue.

(Log in to post comments)

Yes, title is exaggeration, but danger is there.

Posted Oct 18, 2010 17:11 UTC (Mon) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link]

I agree with you. I think that you would have made a better point with a shorter post on your blog, which would have included your final clarification from the beginning - so I recommend that you re-write it. But I see your points, and I completely agree with you: I don't like where Canonical is driving Ubuntu at all.

Don't like to change too much once it's up.

Posted Oct 18, 2010 21:47 UTC (Mon) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link]

It seems disingenuous to me to change anything other than grammar/typos of the original post after the fact, that's why I added things at the end. People have already commented on the original and making it go away seems like playing revisionist history to me. The title was a poor choice; I've been convinced of that, but changing it now seems like an attempt to take back what's already been said.

Don't like to change too much once it's up.

Posted Oct 18, 2010 21:56 UTC (Mon) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link]

Sorry I wasn't clear (to partially vindicate myself: I'm not an English native speaker).

What I meant was a completely new "follow-up" post, much shorter, with a different title, taking into account from the beginning what you wrote in the postface. You should link the new post right at the beginning of the "old" one.

But as I said, I completely agree with you, so that new post would only be useful to others who haven't read (and/or discussed and/or fully understood your points).