| |||||||||||||
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free softwareMark Shuttleworth on companies and free softwarePosted May 17, 2011 19:29 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software by dlang Parent article: Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software I struggled a bit with this one during the review process and thought we had cleared it up. Here's my interpretation, which is very much third-hand and could be wrong, bear that in mind. Mark says he wants to "empower" projects; by that, I believe, he means empowering a project's (single) owner to take it proprietary if need be. An empowered project can create its own revenue stream, in the process taking revenue from the distributors who are otherwise the only ones in a position to support the code. So, by "empowering" projects in this way, he hopes to strengthen the ecosystem (creating more high-quality applications), but, since such empowerment may take revenue from Canonical, it may weaken his company.
(Log in to post comments)
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 17, 2011 19:42 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Like how Canonical helped empower the Banshee developers to build the Amazon web store with its referral revenue stream.
I call BS.
-jef
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 17, 2011 21:33 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
This is not a categorical problem, but one of numbers. What will make more money for the Banshee project, 25% with Ubuntu or 100% without? Can Ubuntu bring in 4 times more users?
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 17, 2011 21:44 UTC (Tue) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828) [Link]
Actually, I disagree. If you're talking about empowering projects, Ubuntu bringing in twice the revenue via the broader user-base still isn't obviously a good deal. Sure, it's jam today, but where's tomorrow's jam going to come from?
If you care about sustainable business models, giving someone else the control over your revenue stream is not a sure-fire recipe for success.
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 18, 2011 7:22 UTC (Wed) by ingwa (subscriber, #71149) [Link]
This thread is mixing two things: the distribution of free software in order to get more users, which is what the Linux distros normally do, and "distribution" of a revenue stream, which is not something that Linux distributions normally do.
If the banshee developers want to create a revenue stream from their free software project, it's not at all a given right that they can demand help with this from the distribution.
When it comes to users, it's the shared interest of the developers and the distro that as many users as possible get access to the application. But when it comes to revenue stream, they suddenly become competitors. Or rather: they become different steps in a standard sales channel: the vendor and the distributor. It's only fair that they share the revenue.
This said, it's entirely possible that the best strategy in the long run is to build your own distribution channel and get 100% of the revenue. After all, you should own your own customers, right? But then the devs or (more likely) their fanboys shouldn't complain that the distributor doesn't give them a channel for revenue generation for free.
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 17, 2011 22:32 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
You took the wrong point away from my snark. Canonical's actions in the handling of the banshee situation do not jive with point Corbet interpret from Mark's language.
I'm not saying Corbet's interpretation of what Mark said really is what Mark intended or not. Without the original conversation I can't make the judgement for myself. Corbet did admit this was hard for the LWN team to wrap their head around what Mark said here and I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as I'm the _only_ professional Mark Shuttleworth mind reader. I have business cards and everything...very classy..very professional..I'm available for birthday and retirement parties.
I'm saying,that correct or not, that particular interpretation doesn't make any sense in the context of what happened with Banshee. And if that is what Mark really meant to say, Mark needs to take a second run at explaining his point using the Banshee situation as an illustrative example of how Canonical is willing to take a financial loss in order to empower application developers and the ecosystem to build viable revenue streams to take application development to the next level. Because from where I sit, it sure looks like Canonical actions are out of step with the intent expressed here.
-jef
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 17, 2011 22:45 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
> Corbet did admit this was hard for the LWN team to wrap their head
> around what Mark said here
I think what Jon meant was that I didn't describe what Mark said very well. I/We thought that a revision of that particular spot in the article fixed the problem, but evidently it did not. I agree that Jon's characterization of what Mark said is my understanding as well, which should come as no surprise because I am the one who explained what was meant during the review process.
I do think that Mark would put a much different spin on the Banshee situation than you are (of course). He would, I think, argue that he is trying to empower Banshee with a larger revenue stream by bringing the application into Ubuntu, which will, at least in his mind, bring many more users (and much more revenue) to the project. You can agree or disagree with that, but it is in keeping with what he said in our conversation, I believe.
jake
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 17, 2011 22:58 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
There is no evidence that Canonical was willing to take a financial hit in the original offer put forward to Banshee. Even in the final arrangement that Canonical unilaterally imposed on the Banshee developers its still not clear that Canonical takes a financial hit. Canonical is taking a cut of the Banshee revenue stream and making money. Whether or not their cut is unreasonable is immaterial to the point at hand.
Clearly Banshee developers felt empowered before Canonical as a distributor decided they deserved a cut for providing a platform. Nothing Canonical did "empowered" Banshee devs to build that revenue stream.
And since we are talking numbers... does Canonical have a public fee schedule for application developers who want to build revenue streams that Canonical will be taking a reasonable cut of in the future as platform provider?
We've seen Google just announce at GoogleIO a flat 5% commission on revenue generating apps which make use of their html5 based platform on ChromeOS (AngryBirds being the showpiece for that). And we've also seen some information concerning Apple "empowerment" of application developer revenue models (poor poor CoverFlow) But I really haven't seen anything concrete from Canonical about what application developers can expect. Or does Canonical anticipate that so few developers are going to be interested in their platform that they can just handle revenue sharing on a case by case basis.
-jef
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 25, 2011 5:00 UTC (Wed) by loftsy (guest, #75160) [Link]
If the Banshee project had a copyright assignment policy then they would be in a stronger position to negotiate revenue share with the distributions. So your example actually illustrates Mark's point precisely.
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 26, 2011 8:02 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] I don't see how such an agreement would help the Banshee developers; they choose to release their code under GPL terms, and Canonical/Ubuntu are complying with those terms. If one entity held all the copyrights on Banshee, I still don't see how they could use that leverage to affect Canonical's behaviour. Copyright-wise, what Canonical is doing is legal. Its the morality of their actions that's in dispute; legal ownership of the copyright is a non-sequitur.
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 26, 2011 16:39 UTC (Thu) by loftsy (guest, #75160) [Link]
I'll give you a specific example to illustrate how having more control over your code gives you more flexibility over distribution. Please note I'm using an example to show a more general point - I haven't actually thought long and hard about potential Banshee business models of which I'm sure there are many.
Banshee could have written the Amazon plugin under a more restrictive license which prevented Ubuntu from changing the billing code. Then used their control of the Banshee source-code to allow the usage of the proprietary plugin.
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 26, 2011 16:59 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Banshee's under MIT/X11. If they'd wanted to do that, they could have done.
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 26, 2011 17:24 UTC (Thu) by loftsy (guest, #75160) [Link]
Heh - OK I guess you've got me there. If you license basically says "Do whatever you want with it" then you don't make much downstream control!
Still - it doesn't change the fact that retaining copyright provides you with options. In this case it would have to come down to relicensing.
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 26, 2011 17:34 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] Effectively, what you're saying is that if the Banshee developers had chosen to take their code proprietary, they wouldn't have trouble with Canonical taking advantage of the benefits of Free Software. While that's certainly true, that's not a benefit to Free Software, and if that's the sort of thing that people are coming up with that justifies copyright assignment, then I'm going to remain sceptical of Mark's motivations.
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 26, 2011 8:04 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
> If the Banshee project had a copyright assignment policy then they would be in a stronger position to negotiate revenue share with the distributions.
Only if they're willing to threaten to go from a free license to a proprietary license only otherwise their position wouldn't be much stronger.
If a project do this, it wouldn't be considered anymore as a free software project I think..
|
|||||||||||||