Kubuntu to be sponsored by Blue Systems [LWN.net]

Kubuntu to be sponsored by Blue Systems

Posted Apr 11, 2012 18:07 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
In reply to: Kubuntu to be sponsored by Blue Systems by jspaleta
Parent article: Kubuntu to be sponsored by Blue Systems

I think we are reading different things into the term 'sponsoring' here.

Sponsor != Owner

as far as I can tell, the sponsorship here consists of paying one developer out of many. That's good, but that's hardly taking control of the project.

I could setup a monthly donation of $10 to Kubuntu (or to a Kubuntu developer) and I would then also be a "sponsor" of Kubuntu.

This would be like saying that RedHat needs to have control of the Linux trademarks and branding because they contribute so much development effort to the Linux kernel. They may be the single biggest contributer (at least for most kernel releases), but that doesn't mean they control the project.

In fact, from what I remember from the 'who contributed to version X' articles, the contribution from redhat to the Linux kernel is very similar to the contribution from the one developer that Blue Systems is going to be paying for to Kubuntu (and even that ignores the fact that 99% of the packages available in Kubuntu are never touched by the Kubuntu team because they are the standard Ubuntu packages)

(Log in to post comments)

Kubuntu to be sponsored by Blue Systems

Posted Apr 12, 2012 1:06 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

The linux trademark situation is indeed instructive. The Linux marks are owned by an individual and the licensing is managed by a non-profit foundation....not by a for-profit entity.

I am not saying that the dominate for-profit vendor needs to own the mark to do business. If I am saying anything, I am saying that is exactly the situation which upstream projects should endeavor to avoid if they want a robust multi-vendor support network. They need to try to make it possible for multiple vendors to use the marks on a non-discriminatory basis in conjunction with commercial products and services.

What I am saying is that making sure that _one_ vendor (or group of vendors) does not have undue influence over how the marks are licensed to other contributing vendors in order to ensure a fair playing field with regard to marketing products that make use of the upstream code.

So to go backing to the specifics of your analogy with regard to the linux marks and Red Hat....

I would _loath_ it if Red Hat owned the marks to the linux kernel and set up a trademark policy which gave themselves the preferential and discriminatory access to use the marks in their marketing materials over competing vendors who wanted to use the linux marks in association with their products and services which directly competed with Red Hat's products. I much prefer that trademark licensing for projects intended to have multiple vendor support be administered by a vendor-neutral non-profit who isn't looking to garner competitive advantage in the marketplace by excluding other vendors from being able to use the mark.

-jef