Ubuntu Community Council statement on Canonical package licensing

Posted Feb 15, 2014 22:54 UTC (Sat) by jelmer (guest, #40812)
In reply to: Ubuntu Community Council statement on Canonical package licensing by jriddell
Parent article: Ubuntu Community Council statement on Canonical package licensing

So you're the concerned community member referenced in their response. :-)
Do you have any idea why they're being so vague about what this supposed licensing is for?

(I commented on the Community Council's blog post to ask for clarification, but my comment is still held for moderation)

Ubuntu Community Council statement on Canonical package licensing

Posted Feb 16, 2014 0:34 UTC (Sun) by jriddell (subscriber, #3916) [Link]

> So you're the concerned community member referenced in their response. :-)
Do you have any idea why they're being so vague about what this supposed licensing is for?

Because no licence is needed under any considered interpretation of copyright law but they can get away with FUD from vague claims so people who don't have the time to consider it are left unsure.

Ubuntu Community Council statement on Canonical package licensing

Posted Feb 16, 2014 18:48 UTC (Sun) by andrewsomething (guest, #53527) [Link] (1 responses)

> Do you have any idea why they're being so vague about what this supposed licensing is for?

Right; it's all so vague. If it's really about distributing binary packages, why don't mirrors need to get a license? If it's about resources (though I can imagine how that would work), could Mint just host their own mirror and put that in their sources.list?

Ubuntu Community Council statement on Canonical package licensing

Posted Feb 16, 2014 19:00 UTC (Sun) by andrewsomething (guest, #53527) [Link]

^^ s/can imagine/can't imagine/