Ubuntu developer summit
Benefits for LWN subscribersThe primary benefit from subscribing to LWN is helping to keep us publishing, but, beyond that, subscribers get immediate access to all site content and access to a number of extra site features. Please sign up today!
Ubuntu community manager Jono Bacon opened the "most important event
of the Ubuntu cycle
", Ubuntu Developer Summit (UDS), which was held
May 9-13 in Budapest, Hungary. In addition to Ubuntu, though, there was a
large Linaro presence because the Linaro Development Summit (LDS) was going
on at the same time. The close relationship between the distribution and
the consortium of ARM companies was clearly in evidence. Both summits
not only shared conference facilities, but were also closely aligned in terms
of how their sessions were run and
recorded. Along the way in the first morning's talks, attendees also
learned the proper pronunciation
for "oneiric".
Ubuntu and Linaro developers were there to plan out their respective development cycles; Ubuntu for 11.10 (aka Oneiric Ocelot) and Linaro more generally for the next six months to a year. Up until now, Linaro has been doing releases in six-month cycles, each just a month after the Ubuntu release that was being tracked. But, as Linaro CEO George Grey announced later in the morning, there would be no Linaro 11.11 release as the organization was moving to a monthly release cycle.
Bacon on the UDS format
Bacon noted that 11.04 ("Natty Narwhal") was a "tremendously
adventurous cycle
" that took Ubuntu "to the next
level
". But UDS is the time to look ahead to the next release and
it is a "critical event
" for the distribution. It is, he
said, not a conference, but rather an interactive event where developers
and other members of the community come together to "design, debate,
and discuss
" the shape of the next release.
Each session at UDS is an hour-long focused discussion, which is based on a
blueprint that is in Launchpad. It is an "incredibly dynamic
schedule
" that is updated with changes to session times and rooms,
as well as having new sessions added based on the outcomes of the meetings
or additional blueprints being added. There are often fifteen simultaneous
meetings taking place, with roughly two-thirds of those being UDS, and the
remaining meetings being for Linaro.
In addition, the meetings are well set up for external participation as there is audio streamed from each room, as well as an IRC channel established and displayed on a screen so that those not present can participate in the discussion. Notes are taken in Etherpad for each meeting so that anyone can follow along or review them later.
There is an established structure for the meetings as well, which starts with a goal for the meeting, Bacon said. That goal is discussed, conclusions are drawn, and the outcome and action items are recorded. Each meeting has a leader who is tasked with setting the goal, moderating the discussion, and ensuring that all participants, even those who tend to not say much, get a chance to talk, he said.
But the end result of the meeting is action items. People are "here
to do real work
", he said, and part of that is identifying the
actions that need to be taken in the next six (five really) months to
achieve the goal. In addition to action items, though, there need to be
people assigned to accomplish them. If people are reluctant to sign up for
those action items, "start nominating people
", as that works
well to flesh out who should be doing what, he said.
The UDS meetings serve as a "valuable
piece of face time
" that should be used to satisfy the overarching
goal, which is to "deliver the most incredible Ubuntu
experience we can
", he said. Bacon then turned the stage over to
Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth.
Shuttleworth on Natty and Ubuntu values
Shuttleworth congratulated the assembled Ubuntu community on its work on
Natty Narwhal, which was a "profoundly challenging
" cycle for
many reasons, he said. Ubuntu is in the middle of a transition, which
makes it normal for there to be questioning and challenging debate around
that transition. But the organization achieved "many of the things we
set out to do
", he said.
Several specific accomplishments from Natty were called out, including work
by the documentation team that made major contributions to both GNOME and
Unity documentation during the cycle. That team was successful in
"spanning that divide [between GNOME and Unity] with grace and
eloquence
", he said. There were also major strides made on
accessibility, which is one of the core values of the Ubuntu community.
There is more accessibility work to do, he said, but it will get finished
during the Oneiric Ocelot cycle.
With Unity, "we've set a new bar for disciplined design in free
software
", Shuttleworth said, by testing the assumptions of the
design team with real user testing. He noted that the "mission
"
for the distribution is to have 200 million Ubuntu users within four
years. Ubuntu is not targeting "developers' hearts and
minds
", but rather the "world's hearts and minds
". But
that shouldn't leave developers behind because they "need all the
things that consumers do, and more
", he said.
Shuttleworth also spent some time to "restate and reaffirm our
values
". People start using something new, like Ubuntu, because of
the buzz around it, but at some point they may reevaluate that decision,
asking themselves "why am I here?
". It makes sense for people
to participate or to continue to participate in a project like Ubuntu if they share the mission and
values of the group.
The governance of Ubuntu is a meritocracy, he said, and not a democracy.
Where hard decisions need to be made, he wants to have the best person
making them, whether that person is a Canonical employee or not. But, once
a person has been given that responsibility, it doesn't make sense to
continually second guess them, he said, "that is how we will be both
free software and incredibly effective
".
There needs to be accountability to members, contributors, and users, as
well. Shuttleworth said that he and other decision-makers should have no
problem being questioned or challenged about decisions they have made,
"but that can't get in the way
" of progress. When you get
"stressed
" about a particular decision, he said, ask yourself whether
the right people are making that decision.
Transparency is also important. There has be a sense of a lack of
transparency in some decisions made in the last few years where those
decisions were presented as having already been made. The community can
"expect and reasonably demand
" discussion of those decisions,
he said. But Ubuntu brings together the community and multiple companies
to make a single platform, and many of the different groups that come
together in Ubuntu have different ideas of what (and how) things should be
done. Transparency is a "value that we hold
", he said, but it
requires respect on all sides.
Contributor agreements
Making a case for the Canonical contributor
agreement is an area where Shuttleworth has "failed as a
leader
", he said. He has "strong views
" on what it
will take to build a collaboration between the community and various
companies, and contributor agreements will play a role. Each side has
different goals and different constraints. Those need to be respected by
all participants so that they can work together.
When all sides are closely aligned in their goals and constraints, they can
work together fairly easily, but that isn't really collaboration so much as
it is teamwork, he said. Ideological constraints put up barriers, and "free"
is not the only way that companies will produce software. There are
"second-class options in vast tracts of free software
", he
said, and in order for that to change, working with various companies will
be important. He noted that Android and iOS have quickly created large
amounts of useful
software even in the face of the Microsoft monopoly.
Starting "today
", Shuttleworth is going take on the job of
making the case for contributor agreements. It will be difficult to do,
but he is up to the challenge, because of the importance. He noted that at
one point Canonical had done some work on some software that had been
created by Novell, who "had done a lot of work that we benefited
from
", while Canonical had done "some work that we were proud
of
". He initially refused to sign a contributor agreement with
Novell for that code, but then couldn't sleep that night and changed his
mind in the morning because he realized that he was not being
"generous
".
Ownership of a project comes with responsibilities, and contributors should
be willing to give up some rights to their code if they aren't taking on
those responsibilities, he said. If someone gave you a plant for your
garden, but asked you to agree not to sell the house if you accepted it,
you likely wouldn't agree to that, he said. "It would not be generous
on their part
". He recognizes that convincing the community about
contributor agreements is an uphill battle, but that the "upside in
this case is all on my side
" because those agreements are not
popular in the community.
Oneiric
After a brief farewell (but not goodbye) message from Ubuntu CTO Matt Zimmerman, Shuttleworth noted that this development cycle started with a challenge: how does one pronounce "oneiric" (which means dreamy or dreamlike)? With the help of some community members with improvisational skills, and a prop named "Rick" (Spencer, director of Ubuntu engineering), several possibilities were demonstrated: "annoy-rick", "one-eye-rick", "on-a-rick", and so on, before Shuttleworth settled on the "winner", which was "o-near-rick", though, of course, several other alternatives are being heard throughout the summit.
There are "hundreds of things being decided
" during the week
of UDS, Shuttleworth said. Though there won't be any major shifts (a
la Unity) for this cycle, there are lots of choices being made. One
immediate decision point was whether to use Eucalyptus or OpenStack as the
default cloud platform, and that decision needed to be made on the first
day, he said. That was decided
in favor of OpenStack, though Eucalyptus will still be supported.
There are some other changes that may be afoot, including potentially switching to
Thunderbird as the default email client, as well as possibly changing from
Firefox to Chromium as the default web browser. Other, less visible changes
will be decided upon as well. After the week of UDS, it will be time to
"get stuff done
" to make those decisions, and all the other
plans made, come together for Oneiric Ocelot, he said.
| Index entries for this article | |
|---|---|
| Conference | Ubuntu Developer Summit/2011 |
Posted May 11, 2011 19:10 UTC (Wed)
by AlexHudson (guest, #41828)
[Link] (14 responses)
I suppose that pretty much spells it out, right there. "This is my garden. Feel free to trim my hedge once a week, but, y'know, remember this is all mine".
I wonder how many people were under the impression they were working on some kind of community park, not the backyard to Mark's house.
Posted May 11, 2011 19:29 UTC (Wed)
by elanthis (guest, #6227)
[Link] (8 responses)
Hey, stretching metaphors out of context is fun!
Posted May 11, 2011 20:00 UTC (Wed)
by AlexHudson (guest, #41828)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted May 11, 2011 20:43 UTC (Wed)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 13, 2011 0:25 UTC (Fri)
by kiko (subscriber, #69905)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 13, 2011 6:01 UTC (Fri)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
Posted May 13, 2011 6:44 UTC (Fri)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link]
If Canonical really wanted to take future proprietary re-licensing off the table they could craft the language of their agreement to do exactly that.
But no, that's not what they are doing. They very much want the keep the option of proprietary relicensing open. Even if Canonical under current ownership doesn't ever use the ability to do that, the current management teams sees a long term financial benefit in keep the ability to proprietary relicense in play to entice future investment from others.
Canonical sees the ability to proprietary relicense as a strategic business benefit in the long term even if they current management doesn't have plans to actually make use of that ability. If Mark sold Canonical in a year, would you trust the new owners to not relicense? I don't see this current management team being able to put 100+ million Ubuntu systems in play in 4 years time. If that goal is going to happen, Canonical is going to get sold to another entity with a much sharp business focus. And that very well could be proprietary re-licensing of Canonical built tech.
Mark wants everyone to trust him..to trust Canonical like somehow Canonical is a personification of his personal interests. It is not. It is a for-profit entity and being such may very well end up under the control of people with very different personal interests at some point in the future. Mark has a very short memory about this important aspect of the lifecycle of corporate entities. Considering he made his big cash pile by selling his previous successful corporate venture to a much larger entity he should know full well that one of the end-games for Canonical first management team is a lucrative strategic buy-out by another management team. No contributor should make the mistake of forgetting that possible future, no matter how charismatic, charming, friendly or downright human Mark is. End-of-the-day, you aren't handing over your copyrights to the man, you are handing over your copyrights to a corporation.
-jef
Posted May 11, 2011 20:50 UTC (Wed)
by aliguori (subscriber, #30636)
[Link] (2 responses)
But that is not the nature of Free Software. The entire philosophy of Free Software is that everyone should have equal rights to software regardless of who participated in it's creation. Full stop.
There is simply no way you can reconcile contributor agreements with the philosophy of Free Software.
Use a different license that explicitly gives your organization special rights. Don't try to misappropriate Free Software licenses by having a secondary agreement to sign.
Posted May 11, 2011 21:02 UTC (Wed)
by jg (guest, #17537)
[Link] (1 responses)
1) getting them "right" is very hard. I would not/could not sign the Fedora agreement for years due to language that made it unclear exactly what I might be signing away rights to. At the time, I was on the X.org board, and that agreement was written in a way at that time that made it unclear if I might be speaking on behalf of the parent upstream organization, X.org (as opposed to whatever Fedora specific work I might be doing for which I have little problems giving RH rights to).
2) if you work for a corporation, you will usually have to have the agreements reviewed by legal counsel; and it effectively doubles the amount of legal effort to get something "over the wall" to benefit anyone. The inertial barrier is already high enough. And with the problems I covered in 1), you can get into dread "lawyer wait", where no one wants to take any responsibility for their actions, or because the agreement is just hard to understand and therefore review is not timely.
If you are just publishing code under a "standard" major open source license, then legal departments generally don't have to understand the licenses again and again; they internalize the specific licenses.
So contributor agreements between contributors (in a company) to a project like Ubuntu means that we go from a order N problem (of licenses) to add contributor agreements to each project that requires them.
Posted May 11, 2011 22:10 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
I am assuming you are talking about
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses/CLA
It was based on Apache CLA and had some additional unneeded complexity.
FWIW, the new agreement is at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contr...
Should be straight forward and simple.
Posted May 11, 2011 21:14 UTC (Wed)
by dmadsen (guest, #14859)
[Link]
How about I give you a plant for your garden -- which you've made public so that anyone can enjoy it -- under the condition that you don't close your garden to the public or charge an entrance fee that some couldn't afford? Is that unreasonable?
If I'm to be REALLY generous and not have any conditions on my plant gift, perhaps I should stick a "BSD" stake in the pot?
Posted May 12, 2011 0:40 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (3 responses)
I wonder when people will stop insulting and twisting the words of somebody who has donated a significant amount of his personal fortune in a attempt to make Linux software friendly and easy to use.
I know nobody is going to like this, but: You should try to be a bit more kind and understanding in the future because right now you sound a lot like a dick.
Posted May 12, 2011 0:41 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 12, 2011 6:54 UTC (Thu)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link]
Posted May 12, 2011 8:35 UTC (Thu)
by AlexHudson (guest, #41828)
[Link]
I find that works better than name-calling. YMMV.
Posted May 11, 2011 23:00 UTC (Wed)
by dowdle (subscriber, #659)
[Link] (4 responses)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjyNTCHVyxs
Sorry it is Flash on youtube. If I had found it in a more free format, I would have posted that link. I recommend communities post their videos in free formats to archive.org but so many seem to be going to commercial sites who may or may not inject ads.
Posted May 12, 2011 0:34 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (2 responses)
When I click on that link I don't see flash, I see HTML5 webm.
Posted May 12, 2011 14:31 UTC (Thu)
by dowdle (subscriber, #659)
[Link]
Of course the right-click, Save video as... feature just does a rickroll on you. :(
Posted May 12, 2011 10:40 UTC (Thu)
by pranith (subscriber, #53092)
[Link]
Posted May 12, 2011 3:29 UTC (Thu)
by AndreE (guest, #60148)
[Link] (3 responses)
Unfortunately, Mark Shuttleworth is guilty of this too. The idea that people who don't sign over their copyright are just not being generous enough or are not willing to accept responsibility is disingenous and slightly insulting. To tackle copyright assignment, you have to address contributors' fears that their contributions to free software will be co-opted for proprietary gains. That is one of the core responsibilities of any large free software project.
Posted May 12, 2011 6:43 UTC (Thu)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link] (2 responses)
Now I can sort of understand that if Canonical actually owned the copyrights to something significant that could be relicensed and sold as a proprietary work, But they don't. They aren't sitting on a functional codebase like mysql or a full framework like Qt. What they have are bits and pieces bolted on a larger framework they don't control over and I just don't see how anyone is going to bother paying for a proprietary licensed version of any of their in-house developed stuff.
Bzr as a proprietary re-licensed thing? Upstart as a proprietary re-licensed thing?
The utouch stuff maybe has some life in it as a proprietary relicense if they try hard enough to sell as a quick fix for touch capability in a proprietary application. More likely people are just going to route around having to purchase this tech.
I'm not even sure I see the copyrights they do own as value-add in a possible acquisition by another company. Launchpad my have value in an acquisition as a running service...but owning the copyrights isn't where the value is in that case.
-jef
Posted May 13, 2011 13:30 UTC (Fri)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (1 responses)
See http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/BzrFeatures:
Posted May 13, 2011 15:59 UTC (Fri)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link]
They can certainly _try_ to make a business out of that, but my point is perhaps its not actually a viable business.
-jef
Posted May 12, 2011 5:27 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link] (7 responses)
It's not a contributor agreement at all, really. Rather, it's an outright transfer of copyright ownership, directly and categorically, from the coder to commercial firm Canonical, Ltd. Your work becomes literally their property, to do with exactly as they please, from that point forward, free of charge.
ASF, by contrast, don't insist on owning your work. Additionally, although ASF's Contributor License Agreement does give ASF broad rights, it conditions those rights on ASF never using your property 'in a way that is contrary to the public benefit or inconsistent with [ASF's] nonprofit status and bylaws in effect at the time of the Contribution'. And, as with FSF, ASF's commitment to that effect has credibility earned over a long period, which cannot be said of Canonical, Ltd., even if they made a similar commitment, which they do not.
Rick Moen
Posted May 12, 2011 9:37 UTC (Thu)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link] (6 responses)
Substantial contributions are a complete different thing, though. I don't think that copyright assignment is a good idea in such cases, unless you truly trust the receiver.
Posted May 12, 2011 9:47 UTC (Thu)
by AlexHudson (guest, #41828)
[Link] (2 responses)
But on an ongoing basis, does it matter if the thing you've contributed is only 100 lines if it's doing something rather clever and really improves the software? Likewise, if you contribute twenty 10-line patches, are they insubstantial?
Trying to draw this line is why I think all contributors should be treated equally; otherwise it just becomes a divisive issue about trying to weigh the contribution people are making, and that's about as ungracious as you can get.
Posted May 12, 2011 10:56 UTC (Thu)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link]
But there's no need for project maintainers to value contributor's code. Let'em do it themselves. Offer two sets of terms under which you will accept contributions: copyright assignment (for "trivial" stuff) and copyright retention for "substantial" stuff), and let their common sense do the work. And if you feel like it, you can always retain the right to reject patches offered under the "wrong" terms.
Posted May 21, 2011 16:51 UTC (Sat)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
Posted May 12, 2011 12:50 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Posted May 13, 2011 2:23 UTC (Fri)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
What's the point of keeping the copyright of a handful of lines of code?
You ask that as if doing so created a problem. In my experience (in the general case), it doesn't. Bugfix patches traditionally don't even include an author-credit comment line, so the codebase maintainer cannot be even said to be burdened by an overflowing credits list. So, no, it doesn't 'complicate matters for everybody'. In fact, it doesn't require anybody to do anything they're not already doing by default. The codebase maintainer's only burden, actually, is to avoid injuring the property interests of the various copyright holders, who might otherwise sue if they can prove 'actual damages' from copyright infringement, which for all practical purposes can happen only by purporting to adopt a new licence grossly out of step with the existing one.
And that raises the more important question: Why is the codebase maintainer seeking copyright assignments? There's really only the one, obvious reason: The maintainer wants the option to use other people's property in ways they might not consent to, e.g., in proprietary forks, and wishes to avert that problem through complete ownership.
Strictly speaking, by the way, the author of a bugfix patch might not even gain copyright title at all. Copyright arises only from works with 'some minimal degree of creativity' (see Feist Publications decision). Code that is purely functional or for compatibility with existing interfaces thus might not be copyright-eligible (something only a judge could decide). More important, alleged owners of unregistered copyright over a very small contribution would seldom have much in the way of available remedies.
Rick Moen
Posted May 16, 2011 20:39 UTC (Mon)
by job (guest, #670)
[Link]
Posted Jun 2, 2011 21:01 UTC (Thu)
by slashdot (guest, #22014)
[Link]
Well, I think there is a clear way to answer that: raising your middle finger.
Ubuntu developer summit
"If someone gave you a plant for your garden, but asked you to agree not to sell the house if you accepted it, you likely wouldn't agree to that, he said. "It would not be generous on their part"."
Ubuntu developer summit
Ubuntu developer summit
Yup, and he even gives away the end game: selling the house. It's just an unfortunate fact that acquirers of Canonical will value the company higher, if they see it owning some of that valuable IPR. Some of that value is so called "imaginary property", meaning it doesn't mean anything. But some of the value comes from the fact that whoever acquires Canonical will then have the legal right to turn that code into proprietary software.
Ubuntu developer summit
If Mark was just asking us to donate copyrights to his company, sure, I might not even mind. I never paid any money to Canonical despite having used Kubuntu for so many years. So I could give back by donating code.
But I think it is just wrong to reach out to your Free Software and Open Source community and ask them to give you their Free Software, so that you can make proprietary software out of it. I know I couldn't stand there making such an appeal.
Proprietary software and your open source contributions
I'm not worried that Canonical would create proprietary software. Sure, I wasn't worried about MySQL AB either until I realized that was exactly what the execs had been busy doing... But yes, the point is not whether to trust Mark or not.
Proprietary software and your open source contributions
What I see as a likely path here is that eventually Canonical is sold, and the new owner will create proprietary software. I think this is particularly likely because of the mobile device markets you are targeting. And even creating proprietary software isn't wrong in itself, but wrt the contributor agreement in particular I think it is very wrong now to advocate FOSS hackers to sign over copyrights, appealing to them trusting Mark to be a good guy, when in fact the likelihood is quite big that eventually Canonical code can be used to create proprietary software.
Proprietary software and your open source contributions
Ubuntu developer summit
Ubuntu developer summit
- Jim
Ubuntu developer summit
Ubuntu developer summit
Ubuntu developer summit
Ubuntu developer summit
Ubuntu developer summit
Ubuntu developer summit
Video of Mark's speech
Video of Mark's speech
Video of Mark's speech
Video of Mark's speech
Ubuntu developer summit
Ubuntu developer summit
Ubuntu developer summit
>> To embed Bazaar into products under a different
>> license, please contact Canonical with your needs.
Ubuntu developer summit
Not all contributor agreements are created equal
rick@linuxmafia.com
Not all contributor agreements are created equal
Not all contributor agreements are created equal
Not all contributor agreements are created equal
Not all contributor agreements are created equal
A "trivial bug fix" probably does not contain anything which is subject to copyright in the first place, so the ownership issue is moot.
Trivial bug fixes
dgm wrote:
Not all contributor agreements are created equal
rick@linuxmafia.com
Not all contributor agreements are created equal
Ubuntu developer summit
