Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Banshee Amazon Store disabled in Ubuntu 11.04 by Canonical (Network World)
Posted Feb 16, 2011 18:54 UTC (Wed) by pebolle (guest, #35204)
I happen to think this is reasonable behaviour, simply because it respects the Banshee license. So could you please elaborate why the fact that I have that opinion validates calling me, and others that have a similar opinion, names?
Posted Feb 16, 2011 20:41 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted Feb 16, 2011 23:05 UTC (Wed) by pebolle (guest, #35204)
What I'm puzzled about is that people apparently feel strongly about this situation. I thought it was well established that one may try to earn money with free software that one has not written. More to the point, I don't think there's any (moral) obligation to share the money one does earn that way with those that did write that free software. I'm pretty sure that licenses that add such an obligation (and thus make it a legal obligation) would be considered non-free.
So what exactly is the issue here?
Posted Feb 18, 2011 17:59 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
So what exactly is the issue here?
Isn't the issue a bit like the situation where you find that the money in the tip jar doesn't go to the people who gave the bulk of the service in a transaction, but to their boss/manager?
Posted Feb 16, 2011 20:17 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted Feb 16, 2011 22:37 UTC (Wed) by nicooo (guest, #69134)
Posted Feb 16, 2011 22:43 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted Feb 17, 2011 19:44 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164)
Posted Feb 16, 2011 20:54 UTC (Wed) by leomilano (guest, #32220)
Maybe Mark should have just kept his cash to his ownand live life. Why bother donating huge amounts of money from his pocket to bring freedom of choice to the masses? Of course, he has higher standards.
Can we leave this attitude behind and keep working together to make this world a better place?
Posted Feb 16, 2011 21:56 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Canonical is not a charity, Ubuntu is not a charity, and the money Shuttleworth is spending to keep Canonical afloat is not a donation. Canonical is a for-profit business entity that manages the wholly subsidiary Ubuntu project. To suggest that the money Shuttleworth has invested into Canonical and into Ubuntu is a donation is to grossly mischaracterize the reality of the situation.
A would daresay that if the structure of relationship between Ubuntu and Canonical were different....more Mozilla-like where the for-profit was a subsidiary of a non-profit... operations and business focus would be better aligned towards a more straight-forwardly stated social benefit and things would be clearer for everyone on how to ethically move towards that goal.
Posted Feb 16, 2011 22:35 UTC (Wed) by ewan (subscriber, #5533)
That isn't the situation; Canonical are taking money earned by application developers and redirecting it into their own pockets. It's not about how much they 'donate' it's about how much they steal.
They didn't do the work that generates this revenue; it's not their money.
Posted Feb 16, 2011 23:11 UTC (Wed) by pebolle (guest, #35204)
Are we being trolled?
Posted Feb 17, 2011 0:17 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533)
I'm fine with the idea of distributors making money using Free software, and I'm completely behind the model of giving away the software, but charging for support, since in that case the entity being paid is actually doing the work that's being paid for. I'm fine with the model of distributors offering other services (like music stores) and charging for products sold through them, including the Ubuntu One music store.
However, it seems very wrong to try to take a cut (especially a large majority cut) of a sale where you didn't write the software, didn't supply the product being sold, aren't running the store, and have essentially contributed nothing to the process at all. To do so when it takes revenue away from a non-profit foundation that supports the development that you rely on for your business is beyond the pale.
I'm slightly stunned that anyone actually supports this.
Posted Feb 17, 2011 0:26 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
what they contribute is access to the users, and to provide access to the users, the distribution spends a lot of effort making itself attractive to the users.
Posted Feb 17, 2011 5:22 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
And I do suspect you can see all of this and are trolling.
Posted Feb 17, 2011 12:06 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
We're going to go round and round in circles over this...
I don't think providing the Ubuntu desktop qualifies as "contributing nothing to the process." You can't run banshee on thin air, and few people would run it on Windows. Ubuntu is the enabler for such software for ordinary users.
I don't think providing the Debian distribution qualifies as "contributing nothing to the process", either. In fact, there's always been tension between upstream projects and distributions. Sure, if the Banshee or Amarok projects (or whoever) decide that they're going to put in a facility to purchase music through a store that gives them a stream of donations that might fund their work, it's a speculative move on their part, and removing such facilities isn't against the licensing terms, but when distributions start to flex their muscles and override such initiatives, effectively saying "Oh no you don't! If anyone is going to get money from this, it's us!", whilst not providing a replacement stream of funding, then that distribution is cultivating a reputation for freeloading at the expense of the groups that contribute to its success.
A banshee developer posted elsewhere on this page that the majority of banshee users are Ubuntu users.
And someone else pointed out that this doesn't mean that the majority of people buying music and "donating" are Ubuntu users.
Posted Feb 17, 2011 13:28 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576)
Posted Feb 17, 2011 15:14 UTC (Thu) by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
(not really, but see how offensive that is?)
Posted Feb 18, 2011 11:31 UTC (Fri) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164)
Meanwhile, they are a company, building on the efforts of Debian and the volunteers in Ubuntu. That is OK - we all build on the efforts of others. But repaying those others for their efforts by taking away their (*humble*) source of income is just dishonest and might I say *evil*.
Disclaimer: I work for Novell and support Novell's move to give the money to the GNOME Foundation instead of taking it for itself. And I find it ironic that now ANOTHER company, a competitor of us no less, comes in and takes the money WE donate to the GNOME Foundation...
Posted Feb 20, 2011 19:41 UTC (Sun) by efraim (subscriber, #65977)
In my view Ubuntu is doing the community a great service, and as such also its parent company Canonical.
Your estimate is extremely arrogant - it's like those developers who claim they are the only one doing anything useful and all those managers and, oh, salespersons are not needed.
Posted Mar 13, 2011 20:55 UTC (Sun) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164)
Banshee has many developers working on it, Canonical needs one guy 1 hour per month to get it packaged. Pretty sure my 1/100.000 is not far off.
The other stuff Canonical does like marketing and other blabla is useful - for them. Not for Banshee. If Canonical didn't exist, other distro's would ship their apps and they don't take 75%, not even the company that developed Banshee (Novell) does that in their SUSE or in openSUSE.
But let's be friendly and say Canonical has contributed to Banshee by bringing it to users - that effort is worth 75%? That is way more insulting that saying their effort is worth 1/100.000, frankly.
Posted Feb 17, 2011 22:15 UTC (Thu) by zonker (subscriber, #7867)
Well, here's the rub - there's a question whether this constitutes "working together" or not. One group produces software for a platform with a feature for raising money, and says "I want the money to go back to the platform." Then a downstream project that also uses that platform says "well, no - that competes with us making money, so either give us a 3/4 cut of the proceeds, or we'll hide your thing so ours is the default."
I'm not entirely sure that constitutes "working together."
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds