LWN.net News from the source
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 2:32 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
I totally understand getting rid of someone that is creating a hostile environment. But I don't see that here, at least with the evidence being provided. As was stated in that terrible email thread, to up and announce something like this that was the result of a secret vote without any type of explanation just presents a picture of all kinds of ugliness on the part of the CC and Canonical as a whole. It doesn't help that I don't think Shuttleworth understands FOSS at all and that this view of his permeates every action his company takes including apparently trying to shut someone up that's pointing out this misunderstanding.
It will be interesting to watch though, if Scott is right the entire Kubuntu project developers could basically walk away because of this. I'm not sure Shuttleworth would even care but it will still be interesting.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 2:56 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
The only informative bit is the IRC log linked in the author-redacted mail, here. It seems at least one dispute is over the IP policy and especially this line: "Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries." Riddell sees it as violative of free software rights. Canonical sees it as protecting their Ubuntu trademark. Personally it seems to me that Canonical is correct and, besides, they are not the only people to do this -- Red Hat, Mozilla, and other free software vendors all protect their trademarks carefully and it does not violate the "free software" nature of the product. One could question why recompilation of binaries that don't infringe trademarks is necessary, but maybe the Ubuntu string is embedded in there somewhere, and anyway the CC is right that they can't override their legal department in making a statement.Anyway, based on that log, to me Riddell does come across as unnecessarily argumentative, but it has nothing to do with Kubuntu development and is only one example of his interactions with the CC. Maybe this is the only issue here, but it was bad enough...
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 3:01 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Replying to myself: this email from Riddell is a bit more informative about his concerns. He may be right from a US point of view, Canonical may be right that different countries have different laws and it needs to be examined very carefully.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 4:22 UTC (Wed) by kevinm (guest, #69913) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 23:02 UTC (Wed) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 0:51 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
IMO, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. It's not _that_ hard to change the branding. Anyone doing a legitimate re-distribution should be able to do so.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 7:33 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 7:54 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 8:09 UTC (Wed) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
I don't see how this policy can be Ultimate Evil for Ubuntu but business as usual for RedHat. The community has accepted RedHat having similar policies for years (along with Mozilla doing similar things).
The GPL gives you access to the source, it doesn't let you represent your version as being supported/endorsed by the Trademark owner.
All this being said, I have no idea who is right in the dispute involving Riddell.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 10:03 UTC (Wed) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 18:36 UTC (Wed) by broonie (subscriber, #7078) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 10:08 UTC (Thu) by dunlapg (subscriber, #57764) [Link]
All in all, doing some sort of binary patch thing would be very complicated and also very fragile. Since RH publish the source RPMs already, it's probably both easier and more robust to just recompile the whole thing.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 12:50 UTC (Wed) by thestinger (subscriber, #91827) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 15:38 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
And this is exactly what they are doing. Please read the text again: Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu. If you need us to approve, certify or provide modified versions for redistribution you will require a licence agreement from Canonical, for which you may be required to pay. For further information, please contact us (as set out below). (emphasis mine).
This says that you could distribute anything you want as long as you are ready to prove in court that Canonical had no right to restrict distribution of a package in question.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 16:55 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 16:59 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
I look forward to the SFLC's postmortem blog post.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 17:12 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Three things.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 17:18 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Seriously please read:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/11/sfl...
If the SFLC is involved in a protracted discussion, spanning months, then I think there's something significant to be learned in the postmortem. That's a significant investment of the SFLC's time, and not done lightly.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 17:40 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Again, I don't see the poicy as violating the GPL: it talks about Ubuntu the system but says individual packages are governed by their licences. If RMS/FSF thought it violated the GPL, well, they've been outspoken about Ubuntu before (the amazon/"spyware" stuff) and I'd be surprised if he let this pass. RMS was not only vocal about KDE/Qt's (genuine) GPL violation, for instance, but even after Qt became GPL'd, claimed that KDE would be illegal until it sought and received "forgiveness" from the FSF! (That link seems to be dead but KDE's response is here.) Given what RMS is like, I really doubt he would let a GPL violation by Ubuntu pass. (Commercial vendors like Cisco are another matter, he may well prefer to leave it to SFLC to negotiate those behind the scenes.)
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 17:56 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
So the concerns over what Canonical is actually doing when seeking people to pay for a licensee has not been established as fact. Until we see the actual communications between Canonical and licensees we don't know if Canonical is putting additional restrictions on GPL code contrary to the copyright license. I can't come to a judgment, one way or the other, because I don't have the evidence in the form of the license text Canonical had been pushing on external redistributors making use of the Ubuntu binaries. But the fact that Canonical hasn't responded to Dr Garrett in his capacity as a copyright owner on code that Canonical is shipping, to clear up his concerns, is not a good sign.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 17:51 UTC (Thu) by Miciah (guest, #88732) [Link]
No, that is not what RMS said, and it is not even what the KDE project said RMS said. You and the KDE project (way back when it published that response) are being quite disingenuous here if not outright lying.
First, RMS's argument was that because KDE violated the licence agreement for particular GPL-licenced pieces of software when it incorporated that software into incompatibly licenced software, therefore KDE lost all rights to use that GPL-licenced software, even after KDE relicenced its own code to be GPL-compatible. To quote RMS, "Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently forfeits the right to distribute the code at all." Thus the argument was not that the KDE project needed to seek and receive forgiveness from the FSF, but rather that it must seek and receive forgiveness from the copyright holders whose rights the KDE project had violated. That said, IANAL and cannot say whether RMS's argument would hold up in court, but it seems like a much more plausible argument than your strawman.
Second, RMS explicitly forgave the KDE project with regards to the FSF's own code ("To lead the way, the FSF hereby grants this forgiveness for all code that is copyright FSF."). To claim that RMS was demanding that the KDE project seek and receive forgiveness from the FSF, based on the articles that you and the KDE project cite, is astonishingly wrong.
"That link seems to be dead but KDE's response is here."
The KDE project's editorial link to RMS's editorial worked fine for me. I'm glad it did because it lay bare the KDE project's troubling dishonesty.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 4:48 UTC (Thu) by Kamilion (subscriber, #42576) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 6:00 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
I share Jonathon's initial reaction. Wow. The logic Michael is using..concerning the unfairness of wasting Canonical's resources is just...crazy...and that's being polite.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 7:12 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 9:24 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
Given the supposed philosophical meaning of 'ubuntu' it's fairly striking for anyone to dismiss part of the community as "they are not Ubuntu".
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 19:17 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Does it? The policy explicitly mentions packages.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 4:54 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Yes, the policy does mention packages. What it says about packages is:The disk, CD, installer and system images, together with Ubuntu packages and binary files, are in many cases copyright of Canonical (which copyright may be distinct from the copyright in the individual components therein) and can only be used in accordance with the copyright licences therein and this IPRights Policy.and
You can redistribute Ubuntu in its unmodified form, complete with the installer images and packages provided by Canonical (this includes the publication or launch of virtual machine images).and (as noted above)
Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu.Seems clear enough.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 9:26 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of UbuntuIt's hardly clear to prohibit something that's permitted by open source licences while insisting that you're not.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 11:21 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Collections (like Ubuntu, or books) may have a different copyright status and trademark status from their individual components (the .deb packages, or individual chapters).
This is neither new nor unusual, even in the free software world.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 21:14 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
As others have said, Jon's claims are valid and he's been pretty darn polite about them potentially violating the GPL. I sincerely doubt anyone that replaces him on this issue is going to be as nice.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 22:38 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
they are not claiming copyright, they are claiming trademark over the name, including as it is included in the compiled packages.
Trademark != Copyright
And it has been clear for a long time that using a copyleft license does not prevent you from still using trademark protection.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 23:21 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 29, 2015 16:23 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I haven't spent a lot of time reading up on this issue but it seems that there is some fundamental misunderstandings of the relationships of Canonical and Ubuntu with the Community Council and related projects. After this maybe people have a better idea where they stand with Canonical and aren't disappointed by presuming influence and importance that Canonical doesn't recognize. It seems to me that the community engagement and related ?ubuntu projects are there to provide positive PR and advertising for Ubuntu and will not be tolerated if they step outside that role and behave in an insubordinate fashion.
If you can deal with those constraints then Ubuntu and Canonical can provide positive benefit to the Free Software community but if you chafe under those restrictions then maybe working with Ubuntu under Canonical is not for you.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 23:45 UTC (Wed) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
Actually, the Ubuntu CC doesn't have a legal department, and while Canonical has, IMNSHO the UCC has the right (and if necessary, the duty) to disagree with them—both privately & publicly. The Ubuntu CC has to represent what is the Ubuntu community's best interests; so all of that community's, and not just Canonical's (otherwise the existence of the UCC is useless, and it should be disbanded).
[I haven't read everything that happened, so I can't judge who is right or wrong or (most likely) where in between, but that's a basic principle]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 4:38 UTC (Wed) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]
The council is composed from more than Canonical people, and they are all smart persons, who are able to think by themself and independently. I would expect the non Canonical one to express if Mark did force their hand or anything.
And while i agree that the discussion behind closed doors leave a bad taste, a public flamewar wouldn't have been better, and it seems the discussion have been going on since a long time. The person whose identity was "redacted" didn't came to fear interaction suddenly.
And yeah, legal issues take a long time to be solved. Anyone who interacted with lawyers know that they are usually busy and think a lot before speaking. It is frustrating, but they have very good reasons for that, like doing things in private protect the mail "attorney/client relations" , etc.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 6:28 UTC (Wed) by mathias (guest, #40647) [Link]
According to the CC, his behaviour was abusive (multiple time, in public and in private), and as an example search for "[Redacted UCC member] reply to Myriam’s mail" and read the mail below.
You might like Jonathan for his work and participation in the Kubuntu community, but in this context this is completely irrelevant: enough people have gone forward to the CC that it felt it had to take action.
In this topic, I've seen mostly Kubuntu users with a paranoid streak voicing support for Jonathan. What if CC is right?
(I'm a former Ubuntu user, I don't have any interest either way)
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 8:24 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Riddell is dissatified with the results of CC activity and expresses this dissatisfaction with the lack of progress towards a solution to the problem, and expresses that dissatisfaction poorly in a way that is unappreciative of the effort that CC members has so for expended to reach into the Canonical fenceline. In fact Riddell becomes outright dismissive of the effort the CC is putting in to try to reach into the Canonical fenceline as its become clear to him that its fruitless and will just drag on. He has come to the erroneous conclusion that a willingness to wait for a response from Canonical is equivalent to a lack of care. Riddell feels a sense of urgency that does not seem to be shared by the CC in their willingness to wait.
The CC member feels Riddell isn't appreciate the amount of work that has gone into trying to address the problem. This is probably accurate. Riddell probably does not appreciate the amount of work its taken so far to seemingly get nowhere. Riddell is results focused not resource focused.
An analogy, I would not be appreciative of the amount of work necessary to drop a brick wall if the only tool used was one's forehead. It's a lot of hardwork to do it that way..sure.. but I wouldn't appreciate the amount of time it took to do it. Shame on me for asking someone to use their forehead instead of a sledgehammer. So maybe the CC was the wrong tool for this job to begin with. Maybe the CC should have directed Riddell to the FSF, to the sledgehammer. It's not clear that the CC was equipped for this sort of task when it took it on. And I don't think anyone in the CC thought it would take this long to get straight answers from inside the Canonical fenceline. That could be part of the frustration here for everybody, the CC was simply the wrong tool for the job, and maybe there are some issues the CC can't be effective in addressing in a timely fashion. Something to think about for the future. Live and learn.
The CC member feels Riddell is misrepresenting the CC collective understanding of the issue and the desire to see it resolved.
This is probably a valid criticism of Riddell. The real disconnect to me seems to be an evaluation of how urgently a resolution is needed. And Riddell can't understand why the CC doesn't feel the same urgency and concludes there must be a lack of understanding or care. Because if they just understood and cared as much as he did, then obviously it would be as urgent to them as it is to him. Or so the thinking goes. This is also probably a bit of rhetorical theatrics on Riddell's part, borne from frustration most likely. And he probably doesn't realize how hurtful that can sound and how personal its going to be taken when people are bashing their heads against the brick wall for him already. Ye without sin throw the first stone. I'm guilty of this sort of emotive rhetoric as well, especially when it comes to my concerns with Canonical. Sometimes I just need to be told to eat a cookie and dial it back from 11 down to 8 when I've gone hulk. It happens, I'm not proud of it.
The CC member seems to indicate Riddell is deliberately manipulating public sentiment by disregarding certain information made available to him in private. Now this I can't actually speak to as there seems to be some amount of private information floating around. I loath private information lingering in private for months, its always prone to be misused. If the fact that the SFLC and the FSF were involved was made public months ago, it might have helped craft a more accurate public narrative over the progress on this issue.
What I know for sure is everybody is frustrated. The problem clearly isn't the CC, the problem is fundamentally Canonical as a corporate entity. So Riddell's criticism of the CC is probably somewhat misplaced. The CC is in a very tough place on these issues. Clearly even the CC is frustrated by how difficult it is to get information from inside the fenceline. Should it really take this long to have valid concerns addressed? And yes this dynamic is very reminiscent of discussions I've seen happen across another fenceline. It can take a stupidly long amount of time to re-align corporate finance and legal processes to be responsive to community concerns. And consider that Mark Shuttleworth is ostensibly on the CC I'm astounded that the CC seems to have so much trouble getting through the Canonical red tape.
-jef
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 10:01 UTC (Wed) by oever (subscriber, #987) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 12:27 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
They probably (I'm assuming they are honest, good people) did what they can to get these issues resolved and probably created some circus within Canonical - but this is entirely invisible from the outside. I know what that is like... I've been in a similar situation more than once.
I can also understand that the frustration expressed by Riddell and aimed at them is not helpful, probably ruining all fun. But it comes with the job, and besides, it isn't just coming from Riddell. By removing him from the equation you just ignite the same fire in others who, until now, were content to let him speak for them (indeed, this is hinted at in the released emails). So it solves nothing.
I'd even argue it would make things worse as Jonathan is a very nice, polite person - I've known him for a long time and you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who disagrees with me. He is well respected in the community and has been personally responsible for attracting, mentoring and guiding dozens of contributors, so if you have a problem with him I'd suggest to take a hard, deep look at yourself before you lash out at him.
Whoever would replace him (and somebody inevitably will) is not likely to be any nicer.
All together, I understand why the CC did this - but I think it is misguided and wrong and I predict that this will end up in them apologizing. No other outcome would be sane.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 18:37 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Isn't somebody who is unreasonable and impossible to argue with and dishonest and so on. It's somebody who desperately wanted an answer and is HAPPY when he GETS IT.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 23:41 UTC (Wed) by mathias (guest, #40647) [Link]
Everyone seems to be reading the email from the CC, and go "There's nothing, it's just an excuse because he keeps bugging them about the licence.", but there's a long list of reported behavior in it, that if substantiated, is simply not acceptable. If as a manager I was reported this kind of behavior, I would feel compelled to act.
There's been enough news in the last years about abusive behavior (Linux code of conduct, brogrammers, gamergate, etc...), we can't keep our heads in the sand and say that it never happens.
The only sensible course of action from the Kubuntu would be to ask a neutral third party to look into the matter and wait for its conclusion: If there's nothing to substantiate the accusations, the consequence for the CC will be devastating. But if there's some truth in the CC's report, then I think its conclusions are warranted: let Jonathan cool off 12 months and hopefully not repeat.
To all those asking for proofs, consider that there might be "victims" in this case. I wish to be in a community where people can speak up without fearing of retribution by a mob-mentality and have those issues fixed.
(I have no affiliation with Ubuntu/Canonical)
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 7:17 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
There are many ways in which they could have dealt with this - this might not be the absolute worst but it comes close.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 15:31 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
You are missing the forest for the trees.
The problem lies not with the legalise, trademarks, FSF or anything like that. It's fundamental. It's about unwritten assumptions (well, they were written recently as you'll see).
The question under discussion is this tidbit:
Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu. If you need us to approve, certify or provide modified versions for redistribution you will require a licence agreement from Canonical, for which you may be required to pay. For further information, please contact us (as set out below).
When Jonathan and CC members discuss it they are not talking about the same thing!
Jonathan assumption: “this is crazy restriction which must not disrupt the community, if we could not remove it then we should at least make sure people could use Ubuntu packages for their own derivativas without asking”—thus “sense of urgency”, “frustration” about this “not a complex issue”. This is (from Jonathan POV!) quite practical problem which is still unresolved after years of discussion.
Canonical (not CC!) assertion: “this restriction is here to stay and we should only make sure that everything is legally Ok with it”—thus apathy, slow discussions, FSF and SFLC. This if (from CC POV!) minor issue better left for lawers because it's, after all, about fine points of fine print in a fine print, real issue is not open for negotiations anyway.
You could see Jonathan's POV here and here and CCs POV (most likely imposed by Canonical) here and here.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 19:45 UTC (Wed) by geuder (subscriber, #62854) [Link]
> Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical
This would be nonsense if looking at packages licensed under GPL (just as an example of the free licenses found inside Ubuntu). GPL
allows you to redistribute the software, so at least all GPL-licensed packages can be redistributed. And probably analogously also all other packages with a free license.
But they are talking about "modified versions of Ubuntu". What is Ubuntu? Can the whole distro (i.e. collection of packages) have a different license? Hmm, I am puzzled and at the end of legal skills here, but still I trust that Eben Moglen was skillful enough that you cannot make the GPL nil and void by one such sentence, whether you are Shuttleworth or not. So if Jonathan Riddell thinks that limiting binary redistribution of packages is wrong, illegal, and such restriction must go away, I think he is correct.
> if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks.
Ah wait, there is an "if". So what does it mean I associate it with the trademarks??? If I call it Kubuntu, I could be dangerously close to the Ubuntu trademark, so that might be indeed a problem. But if I call it Mint, KNiceDistro or Foo I should be fine. (Unless Mint is registered, but you know what I mean....)
So would the whole issue be resolved by Kubuntu calling themselves Bill, George, any damn thing but Sue^WKubuntu?
(I'm not trying to suggest here that Kubuntu should indeed change their name, just *trying* to understand what the issue really is.)
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 10:59 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
So would the whole issue be resolved by Kubuntu calling themselves Bill, George, any damn thing but Sue^WKubuntu?Note that each and every package in Ubuntu includes ubuntu string in it's package version field. One could probably do some kind of binary patching (as was already suggested), but this approach looks kinda fragile.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 14:48 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]
I don't think this really matters as far as trademarks are concerned. The point of a trademark is to prevent consumers from becoming confused. In other words, if I make and sell soft drinks I don't get to call my own product “Coca-Cola”, because consumers have a reasonable expectation that when they buy a can of Coke they get something that was manufactured by the Coca-Cola company. On the other hand, if I'm a grocer and sell pre-canned Coke as manufactured and distributed to me by the Coca-Cola company, I don't need a special trademark licence from the Coca-Cola company to be allowed to do that; they're quite happy for me to just pay for the product. (And while we're talking Linux distributions, yes, that also applies to wholesale grocers.)
In the same vein, if I distribute pre-packaged Ubuntu binaries as part of my Linux distribution (called something other than “*buntu”), I can't violate Canonical's trademark on “Ubuntu” because I'm not passing my own packages off as Ubuntu packages, I'm delivering the actual genuine article that people would also be able to get directly from Canonical. (I would obviously avoid giving my own packages version numbers that include the ubuntu string, and I would also want to make sure that the licences of the packages in question allow me to redistribute the binaries, i.e., the upstream code should be under something like the GPL rather than a restrictive licence. I would also make extra sure that no Ubuntu logos etc. were being displayed by my distribution.)
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 16:10 UTC (Thu) by geuder (subscriber, #62854) [Link]
> Note that each and every package in Ubuntu includes ubuntu string in it's package version field. One could probably do some kind of binary patching (as was already suggested), but this approach looks kinda fragile.
Well, no. You can distribute binary packages, that's the GPL. If the Ubuntu/Canonical or whoever has put some trademarked string into it, that does not change anything. If Ubuntu/Canonical has put the string in, it's their choice, because they own the trademark. By the GPL they cannot forbid or limit the redistribution of the package, otherwise they would lose the license to use and distribute the package themselves.
I think the GPL grants a patent license, should the GPL:ed software use a patent owned by the author. I don't remember anything about granting permission to re-distribute that trademarked string. (I admit I'm not fond of reading the GPL again...) Still I don't think that Eben Moglen has just overlooked that, well if he had we would need a GPLv4.
The trap must be in the condition
> if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks.
So you (e.g. Kubuntu project) must not associate the redistributed package with any of Canonical's trademark (without proper permission). That the string is already in there that's not *you* associating it with the trademark. But of course if you produce a DVD and call it Kubuntu or you maintain servers (repos) and call them Kubuntu, then I would agree that this is you "associating it with the trademarks". But there is no need to do that to exercise your rights granted by the GPL and redistribute the software.
So I still think that calling the Kubuntu distro some other name without trademark implications would make Canonical's argument completely void. The newly named distro could contain original binary packages, because you don't associate them with the trademark.
(Of course Kubuntu-project might not want that, because changing the name might cause a loss in public awareness and popularity. That's the value of a trademark. And Canonical might not like it either because they also benefit from reputation/awareness that there is the broader *ubuntu family. So they might chose to drop all support for any newly named project. Even if Jonathan Riddell has not been on Canonical payroll for a couple of years, I understood the Kubuntu project still uses Canonical resources)
As said before, I'm not here to make suggestions to projects I have not contributed that much otherwise either, I just try to understand the legal facts behind the issue.
As opposed to what I wrote in my previous comment, Kubuntu is not just risky to conflict with the Ubuntu trademark. Canonical has registered Kubuntu, too. So no room for interpretation, it's a clear case.
Disclaimer: Canonical owning Kubuntu trademark and Canonical providing resources for Kubuntu project are statements I read in some discussions on the matter yesterday. They make sense to me, but I have not made any effort to verify them.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 4:14 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
I assume that somebody actually thought they'd get away with this. If so, that's a classic example of the bad sort of groupthink that starts wars. If not, well, their decision. In any case, people will in the future think twice about collaborating with Canonical/Ubuntu.
IMHO Kubuntu should just find a new name and rebase itself on top of Debian. That'd be a lot less work (and emotional upset) than trying to resolve this issue in cooperation with Canonical / the CC – there's no reason, so far, to assume that there will be any such thing.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 5:34 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Not even close. From what I'm seeing Jonathan raised the same question again and again in his quest to change the IP policy and refused to give up when he've gotten the response “our lawers, external lawers and others reviewed the policy and have determined that it's here to stay”.
And lawers are expensive. Human time is also not free. At some point the decision was made (and it was most likely approved by SABDFL) that it has to stop—whatever it takes. If Jonathan must be removed from leadership position then he'll be removed from said position, if he must be removed from project, he'll be removed from project, if it'll lead to Kubuntu implosion then so be it. Basically it's “existential threat to Kubuntu” vs “existential threat to Canonical”. Canonical wins for without Canonical there are no Kubuntu (there may be KDebian, though) but without Kubuntu Canonical could exist.
I'm not Kubuntu user thus I'm looking on that with a grain of salt. I think I'll need more pop-corn :-) It'll be interesting to see what'll happen. Canonical may decide that lawers are not that expensive, or Kubuntu developers may decide that this question is not that important (when RedHat could restrict redistribution of RHEL binaries but Ubuntu couldn't do the same to Ubuntu binaries?), we'll see what'll happen.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 6:24 UTC (Wed) by fandingo (guest, #67019) [Link]
You seem to be implying that Canonical has been timely on the issue, but they haven't at all. If it's taken this long, it's either foot-dragging or a questionable amount of legally wrangling, which both raise ethical questions about Canonical's use of open source software.
I don't have a dog in the fight, and beyond the links post by Jon, I have no more insight on the issue. Nonetheless, your characterization of Canonical and the UCC's handling of the IP policy remains deficient, and that's not an outcome-based criticism.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 7:01 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
As others have pointed out, legal issue take a while. If there were a clear-cut GPL violation here I am sure the FSF and others would have been on it long ago. The FSF did have "concerns" and have been discussing with Canonical, and a statement from Joshua Gay of the FSF was posted on the list, and acknowledged by Riddell, over three weeks ago, suggesting that the story is drawing to a close.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 11:11 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Quite. Lawyers don't respond fast: chasing them is expected (they themselves say as much: like a lot of us they're busy enough that they're often interrupt-driven and one way to push your thing to the top of the stack now and then iff nothing more urgent is happening is to ping them).
Pinging lawyers is expected. Getting *fired* for pinging lawyers, unless you were doing it every day or saying you'd burn down their house or something, is not. (And you'd get fired for threatening to burn down any coworker's house, I'd guess.)
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 6:49 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 7:54 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Canonical appear to have decided that their ability to control derivatives is more important than adhering to the license of the work they distribute.
How could they decide that? That would be illegal. On the contrary, they are concerned about legality of their statements and are working with FSF to make sure 100% everything is legal.
Lawyers don't impose policies. The project does.
Indeed. The project and not one particular member of said project as Jonathan tries to do.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 8:24 UTC (Wed) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
What I see happening here is that Canonical forces untenable policies on Ubuntu and makes the CC back those policies, which I guess stresses them out because they don't like it either, and they take out their stress on the one person who isn't afraid to oppose those policies.
And then kicks him out without even consulting the kubuntu council... And then life gets even more interesting because Mark Shuttleworth applies the boot, and the kubuntu council decides to keep him; no what?
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 12:31 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
By replacing him they are most likely going to get somebody far less friendly and polite as Jonathan.
This was a stupid move, no matter how you slice or dice it.
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 6:37 UTC (Thu) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 7:20 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 15:34 UTC (Thu) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]
That's also assuming that KC would have accepted things and not made a bigger problem, as it was done by publishing private conversations with minimal anonymisation as it happened.
And what if the problem was better being kept private to not cause trouble to someone ?
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 17:13 UTC (Thu) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
That's called "making an example", or scapegoat.
How do you draw that conclusion?
Posted May 28, 2015 21:27 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
That's assuming the problem they had was with the KC, not with Jonathan as a individual. Why would they go to KC in that case ?How on earth can you draw that? This was an issue to the entire kubuntu community. Jonathan heads up the KC and the Kubuntu community. If the UCC had a problem with Jonathon the first thing they should have done is communicated to the Kubuntu community council that they were having an issue with Jonathon and that they would prefer a different person take up the issue in question. Jonathon basically works for the Kubuntu community council, that's the appropriate chain of command.
How do you draw that conclusion?
Posted May 28, 2015 22:08 UTC (Thu) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 15:00 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
And what exactly is wrong with that mail you link to?Really? You mean things like
This shows a complete lack of understanding of the basics of the Ubuntu community, upstream communities, downstream communities, free software processes and the lawfollowed by
They can download all the packages they want from the mirrors that host the packages we make. If you want to restrict how much people do that you need to put a password on the servers to do so.is perfectly fine attitude?
IDK about “Ubuntu community, upstream communities, downstream communities, free software processes” but I know that law, at least, does not give you the right to redistribute something simply because said something could by found on non-password-protected ftp.
Now, the next tidbit:
You can not claim restrictions on software other people make just because we distribute it under a licence they give to us.What this has to do with anything? Sure, restrictions come not from upstream but from Canonical—yet it's perfectly legal thing to do with most packages (not GPL/LGPL licensed ones) and it's not clear if Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries covers GPL/LGPL packages or not (I'm pretty sure lawers did that on purpose).
Basically Jonathan does not discuss legality of restriction. He tries to argue that it must be removed altogether—and does that with words I am Ubuntu which is gross misrepresentation, obviously.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 15:18 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
I'm sure you don't seriously think that's what he was claiming. You omitted:
>You can not restrict what people do unless there's a contractual or
>legal way to do that. People can choose to not be Ubuntu and don't
>get arbitrary restrictions put on them. They can download all the
>packages they want from the mirrors that host the packages we make.
It looks a lot like you are deliberately misrepresenting his statement.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 15:57 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
You omitted:
>You can not restrict what people do unless there's a contractual or
>legal way to do that. People can choose to not be Ubuntu and don't
>get arbitrary restrictions put on them. They can download all the
>packages they want from the mirrors that host the packages we make.
What this part changes? Of course Ubuntu does not claim that all packages must be recompiled and nothing can be reused. It just politely informs developers of potential derivatives that it's their responsibility to check licenses and everything. All packages partially or fully copyrighted by Canonical couldn't be downloaded from Ubuntu mirros and must be recompiled, it's obvious. Other packages? Consult you lawer.
It looks a lot like you are deliberately misrepresenting his statement.
Where? When Jonathan claims that they can download all the packages they want from the mirrors that host the packages we make it's obvious lie: some packages are copyrighted by Canonical and these could be restricted by Canonical (copyright owner could offer the same things under two different, mutually exclusive terms to different consumers), some include serios extensions and thus, too, could be restricted (that's what Microsoft and others are doing with BSD software) and no amount if citations could change that.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 20:24 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Actually, it's NOT obvious. If that package is GPL and partially copyrighted by Canonical, you've just violated the GPL by adding extra restrictions, and hence violated the other authors' copyrights.
DISTRIBUTING AN UNMODIFIED PACKAGE IS NOT A TRADEMARK VIOLATION. Now if you start claiming it's your package, it might become one ..
Of course, if it's TOTALLY Canonical's copyright, then they can do what they like ...
It feels to me like Canonical are sailing as close to the wind as they dare, and a nasty jibe or capsize could be coming ... :-(
Cheers,
Wol
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 21:21 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Are you sure that's not the claim they've made? I'm not.
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20131209#qa
The quote from Clem about the validity of Canonical's claims seem to imply exactly the opposite of what you say canonical is does not claim.
quoting the article verbatim.....
'Clem answered, "We don't think the claim is valid (i.e. that you can copyright the compilation of source into a binary, which is a deterministic process). With that said, Ubuntu is one of Mint's major components and it adds value to our project. If we're able to please Canonical without harming Linux Mint, then we're interested in looking into it. As negative as this may sound, this is neither urgent nor conflictual. It's a rare occasion for Canonical and Linux Mint to talk with one another and although there are disagreements on the validity of the claim, things have been going quite well between the two distributions and both projects are looking for a solution that pleases all parties."'
And that is pretty much the extent of the public discussion concerning exactly what Canonical was claiming copyright on the compiled binaries! So yeah.. uhm not as clear as you think it is. Canonical was definitely claiming something...odd...concerning copyright on binaries. Let's hope its all cleared up soon in the new IP policy that is said to be close to release.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 15:06 UTC (Wed) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
How could they decide that? That would be illegal.Sometimes people choose to do things they shouldn't because they think it's going to cost them less than pursuing the legal alternative. We see this a lot with cheap embedded hardware taking a very lazy approach to GPL compliance because it's cheaper and faster to not care and in practice they hardly ever get sued.
On the contrary, they are concerned about legality of their statements and are working with FSF to make sure 100% everything is legal.It doesn't take a lot of work to comply with the licence in a 'generous' manner - you can be very clear, very open, very flexible, and be very clearly compliant. It only takes a lot of effort if you're trying to skirt the limits and get away with the absolute minimum compliance possible.
The solution is simple - play nice and licence lawyering barely comes into it.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 16:01 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
The solution is simple - play nice and licence lawyering barely comes into it.
When you would fund and make the distribution you could use that advice.
It only takes a lot of effort if you're trying to skirt the limits and get away with the absolute minimum compliance possible.
Yup. But that's clearly what Canonical intends to do here as was already explained.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 16:00 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
If nobody actually sues them, why does it matter?
> Indeed. The project and not one particular member of said project as Jonathan tries to do.
The CC appeared to treat the legal policy as an unalterable reality. It was something imposed upon the project, not one that the project chose to adopt.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 16:07 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
If nobody actually sues them, why does it matter?
There are no auto-reinstatement policy in GPLv2. If it'll be found out that they violated the law, knew about that and did nothing then they could lose the redistribution rights forever. They don't want to risk that, apparently.
The CC appeared to treat the legal policy as an unalterable reality. It was something imposed upon the project, not one that the project chose to adopt.
Yes and no. The idea that there must be strict redistribution restrictions was quite obviously imposed upon the project. The actual terms are apparently up for debate. Because of the above.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 16:13 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
So once there was a threat of a lawsuit, they chose to reassess?
> The idea that there must be strict redistribution restrictions was quite obviously imposed upon the project. The actual terms are apparently up for debate.
They're apparently not up for debate within the project, only between the lawyers and external lawyers.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 16:51 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
The issue is was the CC ever empowered to make policy corrections or statements like the one Riddell wanted them to make. I don't I don't think the CC was ever designed to be a copyright or trademark policy steward. It's at best an arbitration body. The CC perhaps should not have taken this issue up, even though they did so with the best intentions, as its outside of their authority to resolve.
And more to the point I don't think Ubuntu project has a governance body that has the necessary authority over IP policy or any legal issues. This maybe one of those things the SABDFL simply has not delegated out to another goverance entity. And so, I have to wonder why Mark didn't just put his SABDFL hat on way earlier in this process and shutdown the time being wasted by the CC members to try to get answers from inside the Canonical fenceline. Mark setup everyone to fail by letting this play out as if the CC has the authority over legal issues in any way.
This should have perhaps been an FSF engagement from day 1, with recognition that the CC does not have the necessary authority or standing to compel any IP policy changes set forth by Canonical as such policy statements exist outside the bounds of the CoC.
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 12:26 UTC (Thu) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 7:55 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
So to say "our lawyers have reviewed this" is a satisfactory answer for Canonical's owners, but not for the wider community, unless you say exactly what their brief was and publish the advice they gave. Lawyers hate the idea of publishing legal advice because clearly, you don't want to show your hand and weaken your bargaining position. But again, what is an appropriate norm for a legal dispute between two fairly equal parties is not satisfactory for one company dealing with a community on what should be equitable terms derived from the principles of free software.
So if that was the only answer he got, I'm not surprised he kept asking the question until he got a real answer. If all you say is "our lawyers okayed it", this essentially translates as "screw you, you can (threaten to) take us to court if you disagree".
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 10:24 UTC (Wed) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link]
> when RedHat could restrict redistribution of RHEL binaries but Ubuntu couldn't do the same to Ubuntu binaries?
That's been answered before, here. In summary: Red Hat can't restrict redistribution of RHEL binaries; the most they can do to discourage such redistribution is to stop doing business with customers who redistribute the binaries.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 10:29 UTC (Wed) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link]
Oops, my previous message's link destination is incorrect; I meant it to point to this comment instead.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 16:11 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
This is only about GPLed packages. And AFAIK most Ubuntu packages are not GPLed and/or outright copyrighted by Canonical. These could be restructed as much as Canonical wants if they include enough Canonical-owned code.
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 6:50 UTC (Thu) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link]
> most Ubuntu packages are not GPLed and/or outright copyrighted by Canonical
Not sure about "most", but for sure the GPL-licensed ones (plus LGPL ones, etc.) make up a big proportion of the total. (The same applies to RHEL.) And just how many packages are there for which Canonical is the only copyright holder? (Maybe bzr, Upstart, Ubuntu Software Center, the new-Ubuntu-release updater program, some pieces of Unity… any others?)
> These could be restructed as much as Canonical wants if they include enough Canonical-owned code.
If Canonical were to take an upstream project that uses a "non-copyleft" license (e.g. MIT) and begin publishing a new package of it with a changed license (e.g. some "MIT + extra restrictions" custom license), then they might be able to restrict redistribution of that new package version. They could not retroactively put more restrictions on previous versions of the package that they already published under the unchanged upstream license, though. (If they could, then upstream projects could retroactively change their licenses too — thus we'd have no X.Org Server, no cdrkit, etc.) Plus, as you said, the specific package having its license changed would have to "include enough Canonical-owned code" in order for them to have any copyright claim to it.
But, Canonical hasn't tried to do anything like that. What they actually did was to (in private, initally) tell the Linux Mint downstream project that they must sign a license agreement in order to be legally allowed to ship an Apt configuration file that points to the Ubuntu Apt repository. It also wasn't clear whether copyright or trademark (or both, or something else) was their basis for this claim. (Though, on Reddit a Canonical representative specifically accused Mint of trademark infringement, on the grounds that some packages in the Ubuntu Apt repository include the Ubuntu name and logo.)
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 11:18 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Ubuntu is not the first and not the last entity which tries to tweak copyright and/or trademark license to push their own agenda (think FSF and their runtime library exception which uses copyright to make proprietary GCC plugins unfeasiblel; think Google and their trademark license which is given on completely different terms than AOSP source). And you are right that they don't really care if it's copyrights, trademarks, or anything else: their goal is clear and the rest is stuff for lawers.
The fact that Jonathan repeatedly and quite loudly tried to push for change in that agenda was his downfall.
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 21:38 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
This was intentional when the GPL was created. A future was foresaw where a for profit company purchased GPL licensed software from a company and retroactively tried to change the license. The license deliberately prevents this even if the owner controls all the code in the GPL licensed product. They can change the license going forward if they hold copyright on all the code but not on previous releases and they cannot prevent redistribution of previously released GPL code.
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 22:25 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
So RedHat is free to revoke support contracts of people distributing RHEL-produced binaries, for example. It would also be totally allowed for Ubuntu to demand from you to sacrifice your child in order to get 'libpython-dev.deb'.
wat
Posted May 30, 2015 20:25 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Are you sure about this?The GPLv2 seems to me to kick in once you try to make copies of the work you received. E.g.:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, …2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: …
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided …"
It seems very much to "kick in" on every copy of the work, from the point you receive it, through to the point you distribute it on. And it most definitely applies conditions on the distribution of binaries.
Now, what the GPLv2 does *not* require is that if you distribute a GPLv2 binary to one person that you must distribute it to anyone. It /does/ require you distribute the source to /anyone/, if you have ever distributed the binary without accompanying source and instead relied on the 'offer' clause - that offer must then be open to anyone.
On support contracts and terminating them, this is not an additional restriction the GPLv2 cares about because the GPLv2 explicitly limits the scope to:
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. "It is not "you can't impose any more restrictions" - which potentially /could/ have prevented the likes of RedHat from terminating support contracts - but "you can't impose any more restrictions on the rights this licence gives". The GPLv2 doesn't give recipients the right to given support by the distributor, so RedHat can do what they like in support agreements. Nothing to do with specifics of conditions (or lack of) on the binary, AFAICT.
wat
Posted May 31, 2015 17:54 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
If you are the SOLE copyright owner then you are not bound by GPL or any other license. Period.
wat
Posted May 31, 2015 19:27 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
If you wrote the code yourself you can do what you want - you don't need to follow your own licence, cause you can give yourself any licence you want. That seemed so obvious I didn't want bother stating it. ;)
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 23:47 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
The author looses the ability to control the result when they license GPL, the only restrictions on the software are those imposed by the GPL and the addition of restrictions is not compatible.
That's certainly true: source packages in .tar.gz file is licensed under GPL terms and couldn't be relicensed. Binary package, on the other hand, was never licensed on GPL terms, it was only ever distributed on IP Policy terms.
This was intentional when the GPL was created. A future was foresaw where a for profit company purchased GPL licensed software from a company and retroactively tried to change the license. The license deliberately prevents this even if the owner controls all the code in the GPL licensed product. They can change the license going forward if they hold copyright on all the code but not on previous releases and they cannot prevent redistribution of previously released GPL code.
Exactly. But that's the beauty of Canonical's plan: this very protection makes the whole thing workable. Copyright owner couldn't lose it's rights without explicit copyright transfer thus Canonical could distribute the package. But recepient is bound by both GPL and IP Policy terms. Since additional restrictions are imposed on the recepient GPL is no longer usable, it crashed and burned (as intended), only IP Policy terms remain.
Pretty clever if you'll ask me.
wat
Posted May 29, 2015 0:43 UTC (Fri) by Limdi (guest, #100500) [Link]
Do I understand you correctly?
1. A package can have a differing license than the content.
2. If I take the content out every file has its license. I can do with them as the licenses(the files are under) allow.
3. (Clarification from 1st) If I create a package holding gpl binaries I can put a restrictive license on it and disallow redistribution of the package(s) as a whole.
But I can not restrict that someone takes out the files and puts them in again(remember talking about gpl binaries) and redistributes them then under any license he likes.
-> +p How do you see the difference between the original and the repackaged if it is doable to get bit.equality?
(Trying to understand, no idea about correctness)
wat
Posted May 29, 2015 21:49 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
That doesn't make sense to me. If it weren't bound by the GPL, how would the GPL's terms that if you receive the binary, you have to be provided with source work?
wat
Posted May 30, 2015 3:24 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
wat
Posted May 30, 2015 2:41 UTC (Sat) by edgewood (subscriber, #1123) [Link]
GPL 2:
> The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
The binary is clearly a derivative work of the source.
wat
Posted May 31, 2015 8:43 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
I think mechanical translation of text in one language to another potentially has similar copyright issues (though there's more scope for creativity to be in the process than in source->binary conversion possibly).
wat
Posted May 31, 2015 8:51 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
wat
Posted May 31, 2015 18:18 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Yup. That's why there are these words:
wat
Posted May 31, 2015 19:39 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Where the output depends on or creates a work based on the programme (e.g. where the compiler of source code must supply some library code that the source invokes and relies on), and so most law would recognise the copyright of the programme extends to the output anyway, then it says the licence does apply.
I.e. (other than "running not restricted" bit), those bits of text are basically writing the state of copyright law explicitly into the licence. Future proofing I guess. It seems to me.
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 13:50 UTC (Wed) by ndye (guest, #9947) [Link]
And lawers are expensive. Human time is also not free.
This LOL was a nice break from all the angst.
Now back to the regularly scheduled conflict(s).
wat
Posted May 27, 2015 13:47 UTC (Wed) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]
> IMHO Kubuntu should just find a new name and rebase itself on top of Debian.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but Debian's procedure for dealing with serious complaints about developers is to hold an entirely behind-closed-doors discussion and vote on the debian-private@ list, and to say no more in public. Prolific developers have previously been suspended or expelled from the project, with the public having no right to know about its internal dirty laundry.
In fact, very few projects have an established grievance policy involving tarnishing someone's name in public.
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 0:12 UTC (Thu) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 15:48 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Human Rights!
Posted Jun 1, 2015 4:37 UTC (Mon) by ghane (subscriber, #1805) [Link]
"Violation of Human Rights". This is vague enough that I might as well as claim: "Violation of International Law".
Can you cite the document that has been violated?
--
(not a kubuntu user at all)
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 2:28 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
But I can't find a documented grievance policy for Ubuntu other than a blueprint that was never formally adopted as far as I can tell. If a closed session vote is actually the project policy in form and practice then great. But I see no evidence of that being the official policy as far as I can tell and the CoC definitely states a preference to reach for arbitration.
And let's also be very clear.. Jonathon was not kicked out of the the project.. nor has his dev access turned off or any like what are are talking about. He's being told the CC refuses to recognize him a a leader and refuses to work with him basically because he's been difficult to work with and unappreciative of the effort so far expensed. He's not being suspended nor being expelled...he's being formally ignored. He's still going to be in the project and wield significant influence. So this sort of half measure doesn't solve any problem other than to drag his name in the mud a bit. You can't really ignore him, if he's still in the project.
We'll see how that goes. I very much doubt he's the only one frustrated over the IP policy or the donation money issue. And if anything they've made a martyr of him, considering that his concerns seem to have been very well founded. I expect the next person to engage the CC over Canonical policy and to demand action is going to be more difficult not less. Is the CC going to continue to tune people out and refuse to work with them?
-jef
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 8:33 UTC (Thu) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
I don't know, we're getting really close to silent treatment, there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_treatment#In_the_wor...
Saying 'se don't exclude you, but don't talk to us' is part of the mental hrassment.
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 9:16 UTC (Thu) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]
You'd be best off asking them, but there is precedent for the CC dealing with these issues in this manner.
wat
Posted May 28, 2015 23:44 UTC (Thu) by raof (subscriber, #57409) [Link]
From memory, I thought this was correct, but looking through the archives I see that it's actually not. I think we've only officially sanctioned two people in the past, and at least one was done in a fairly similar privately-between-the-concerned-parties fashion: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-April...
Indeed, Scott raised roughly the same concern - something vaguely equivalent to “can we have an ubuntu-private list” - at that time.
Not so fast, please
Posted May 27, 2015 4:22 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
IMHO, this has not been a "legitimate decision" by any stretch of the imagination.
Not so fast, please
Posted May 27, 2015 6:00 UTC (Wed) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]
If the council is here to decide, that's their prerogative. The decision may not be popular, nor the best outcome for everybody, but this was discussed it seems in details, and there was enough people in the council to avoid individual bias.
Not so fast, please
Posted May 27, 2015 6:15 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
If you read the anonymous email it's pretty clear they should've refrained themselves from taking any decision. They were heavily involved emotionally. That's not how you can take an unbiased decision.
Especially with something as unique as this, they should've strived for unbiased people.
Seems like bias, groupthink and having seen that video about poisonous people.
Not so fast, please
Posted May 27, 2015 8:00 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Not a legitimate process even by Ubuntu's definition
Posted May 27, 2015 12:39 UTC (Wed) by sebas (subscriber, #51660) [Link]
* Upon request, the Community Council has not provided any evidence (to the public, or to the Kubuntu Council where it touches private matters) as to justify the measure of booting Jonathan, or any of the claims as to what Jonathan did wrong
* The Community Council has not contacted the Kubuntu Council, who clearly is a stakeholder in order to resolve the situation, the decision has been taken solely within the Community Council and finalised without discussion of important stakeholders
* The decision-making process has not been documented or exposed, it's a decision made behind closed doors without consultation of stakeholders, especially those who could provide help in resolving the conflict in a mutually satisfying way
This violates 2 of the 3 points that define the governance in the Ubuntu project (defined process and transparency), see http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/governance
Not so fast, please
Posted May 27, 2015 12:49 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Not so fast, please
Posted May 27, 2015 16:10 UTC (Wed) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]
If the KC push to keep Jonathan despites being offciailly refused by CC, it would just drive away some people of the Community council ( as I read between the lines from the privates emails that were published ), and if that's a outcome that is a tradeoff for KC just to keep Jonathan, then I suspect they have a misguided sense of collaboration. When someone say "I cannot deal anymore with foo", you either say "ok, we can try to find someone else and resume collaboration" or "you are wrong and you will have to deal with this person", and turn that in a power play.
Sadly, they chose the 2nd way. I do not see how this can result in anything good for the community, so my analysis is that they put Jonathan before the community at large. I agree it is harsh to betray a individual who did lots of work, and who is likely more than a decent human being, and agreeing with the CC would hurt him, but at the same time, people could also trust the CC on acting correctly, and aim for collaboration rather than confrontation.
Not so fast, please
Posted May 27, 2015 16:46 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
This CC wants to kick Jonathan out of KC. They're saying he violated a Code of Conduct. CC provided no evidence and the Code of Conduct is about Jonathans behaviour towards CC.
KC asks for proof, etc and that it is not just his opinion that he was raining, but that it was of the entire KC.
You assert it was just a simple "I cannot work anymore with person X"; that's not what has happened. There is NO reason to have kicked him out; they could've simply requested another person to work with.
CC messed up. I've compared this to moderating a mailing list thread that the moderator was actively involved in. It is quite plainly the case. Why I know: I've done that various times myself; each time thinking I was unbiased (huge mistake).
The "throw him under the bus for the good of the project": For the good of the project, CC should get their act together. You don't rule on something that you're involved with emotionally!!
Not so fast, please
Posted May 27, 2015 18:06 UTC (Wed) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
Not so fast, please
Posted May 29, 2015 11:07 UTC (Fri) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link]
I think I'm not exaggerating if I say kubuntu exists today in large parts because of Jonathan. This is from my POV like e.g. excluding Guido van Rossum from Python.
> and turn that in a power play.
> Sadly, they chose the 2nd way.
If the CC wants to remove Jonathan from kubuntu, and the kubuntu community wants to keep him, why should they "try to collaborate" and obey ? They have their right for their own opinion, and they have the right to fight for it.
Not so fast, please
Posted May 27, 2015 21:30 UTC (Wed) by cmsj (guest, #55014) [Link]
(It's also arguable whether or not the KC even has the right to allow itself to ignore mandates from the UCC)
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 4:44 UTC (Wed) by quartz (guest, #37351) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 9:10 UTC (Wed) by balajig81 (guest, #48030) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 12:31 UTC (Wed) by Sho (subscriber, #8956) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 12:52 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Plasma 4 is Linux' most used desktop, at least in the last polls, GNOME's userbase has fallen apart since the GNOME 3 release and Unity...
And with Plasma 5 out and being darn popular, and more and more applications moving to Qt, GTK being a dying platform - I don't think KDE will become irrelevant any time soon.
Neither will GNOME, of course - they still do have a pretty and interesting desktop, even though their app development and platform are in trouble. It would be sad if their UI experiments would disappear, successful or not.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 15:53 UTC (Wed) by callegar (guest, #16148) [Link]
Even if plasma 5 is very promising, forcing people into Plasma 5 before it is ready is the biggest obstacle against a positive perception of KDE as a reliable platform. Giving people the impression that something is reliable is in many occasions far more important than being at the edge of technology. Here, IMHO Kubuntu has recently made wrong decisions. And it would be great to see more attention on matters like this than on the use of trademarks.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 16:35 UTC (Wed) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 18:48 UTC (Wed) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link]
it looks liek every other KDE distro has jumped on the plasma 5 bandwagon as well :-(
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 18:52 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Most distro's switched with Plasma 5.3 - that seems not unreasonable.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 21:24 UTC (Wed) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
except that 5.3 contains 'minor' issues like the inability to connect or disconnect monitors/projectors without crashing plasma.
This was identified before the release of kubuntu 15.04, so it's not something they didn't know about.
Little OT: reason for the crashes
Posted May 28, 2015 7:06 UTC (Thu) by einar (guest, #98134) [Link]
FYI, the crashes on monitor handling are a Qt bug: fixed in Qt 5.4.2 (not yet released), ask $favorite_distro to backport whatever's needed.
Little OT: reason for the crashes
Posted May 28, 2015 7:27 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
But the point is that this is rather critical functionality for anyone with a laptop, and for it to take until .4.2 to get working is not good, and to force the upgrade to .3 across multiple distros when this is known is really doing a major disservice to users.
Little OT: reason for the crashes
Posted May 28, 2015 8:20 UTC (Thu) by einar (guest, #98134) [Link]
You don't need to force anyone to upgrade, the distribution needs to provide the patch to its users.
Little OT: reason for the crashes
Posted May 29, 2015 16:07 UTC (Fri) by callegar (guest, #16148) [Link]
It is also completely broken session management.
It is compositing that does not work on older nvidia graphics with the proprietary driver (and does so not just disabling itself but by freezing the desktop).
It is broken plasmoids that do not work and that cannot be removed without manually editing configure files, because once installed crash the desktop when one tries to get rid of them.
It is no guest session.
It is login time that tripled.
It is frequent crashes of the plasma desktop.
It is no screen savers.
... And I may go on. And all this with the plasma 5.3 Ppa that is not the official Kubuntu desktop. Because Kubuntu has chosen to go with 5.2 officially, which is significantly behind 5.3.
Little OT: reason for the crashes
Posted Jun 3, 2015 7:51 UTC (Wed) by mbunkus (subscriber, #87248) [Link]
- In konsole Alt+Space does not work, which is essential in Emacs. This has been fixed in git, at least, so now I'm running a self-compiled konsole for the time being.
- Again in konsole Alt+Ctrl+Space does not work. While not as essential I still use it a lot in Emacs. Not fixed yet.
- The wallet system now has two wallets: one wallet (and daemon) for KDE 4, one for the v5 Frameworks stuff. This means that e.g. kmymoney and Chrome use the v4 wallet while ksshaskpass uses the v5 wallet. As both are separate wallets changing a password in the v5 wallet doesn't update the v4 wallet. Even worse the wallet management application is v5 only, so there doesn't seem to be a way to edit the v4 wallet anymore.
- The v5 wallet doesn't stay open, unlike the v4 wallet. This means that I now have to enter my wallet password 6 times when I first login: once for the v4 wallet (which stays open afterwards), three times for SSH keys added with ssh-add due to v5 not staying open, once for mutt, once for another application – and then each and every time I re-start mutt or that other application, which does happen a couple of times over the day. Back with KDE4 I only had to enter my wallet password once per session.
- Desktop configuration is not preserved. This includes but is not limited to: default applications for MIME types; default applications for things like »file manager«, »konsole application« and »web browser«; global hot keys; application-specific hot keys.
- The kclipboard functionality is broken. It seems that a plasmoid is loaded upon start but that plasmoid doesn't react to global hot keys at all. You can start a second instance, and that instance will react to global hot keys. But that second instance won't be started automatically upon next login.
- Time and date configuration is less flexible due to switching from KDE's full-featured date/time classes to Qt's more limited ones. Meaning I cannot select ISO-style date display anymore.
- The calendar plasmoid opened when I click on the time in the task bar doesn't show the week numbers anymore; I often use week numbers when making appointments with other people.
- Baloo, the new file indexing and search functionality, cannot be configured via the GUI. There's a text configuration file that I had to talk to the developers on IRC about in order to figure out how to specify the paths to index and which to exclude. baloo_file, the actual indexing deamon, also tends to end up in endless loops causing a CPU to go to 100%. I've also had baloo's database become corrupted somehow to the point where the baloo developers told me to scratch the dataase and start over.
- The system tray fiasco. v5 frameworks introduced a new API for applications to display their icons in the tray. But most third-party applications like e.g. Psi, AeroFS, Skype… don't use that but the old one. They simply didn't show in the system tray until I researched this topic (most information was in a blog post by Martin Graesslin, installed some obscure system tray compatibility thingy.
These are not functions that I use only occasionally. I need them daily.
All of this with a default installation of the v5 frameworks. Nothing installed externally (e.g. plasmoids). All of this proves yet again that each KDE upgrade causes a lot of pain. As an Arch Linux user I'm used to pain, so I just grumble and try to live with it, but it still annoys the heck out of me and makes me wonder why normal users (meaning: non-developers) go along with it.
Little OT: reason for the crashes
Posted Jun 3, 2015 8:04 UTC (Wed) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
Mostly, my Plasma 5 experience has been really good, and apart from all the usual grumpiness here on LWN, Plasma 5 has been received really well. All three my daughters (who are at university) are using plasma 5 now, without complaints. They only noticed it was prettier and speedier.
There are KDE projects that I've given up on, though -- I'm now back using pine, for instance.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 7:26 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 17:18 UTC (Thu) by callegar (guest, #16148) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted Jun 2, 2015 16:43 UTC (Tue) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
While I am happy to have upgraded to 5.3.1 and miss a single plasma widget (pastebin) I'm overall happier with 5 than I was with 4. And I am glad the developers at openSUSE choose to focus on making 5.x great rather than having mediocre 4 and 5 options.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted Jun 2, 2015 17:14 UTC (Tue) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
unfortunantly the Kubuntu folks don't give us any reasonable option to continue using the 4.x series (no, downloading the source and compiling it ourselves is not reasonable, and neither is not upgrading from kubuntu 14.10)
I'm not asking for exact feature parity or every single widget to be available. But the existing regressions between kubuntu 14.10 and 15.04 are crippling for those who hit them, not minor (the problems supporting connecting projectors, the bad widgets that lockup/crash the desktop so you have to manually edit configs from the console to get rid of them)
Also the fact that the upgrade doesn't migrate user's desktop configs, but instead throws all customization away is an indication of an upgrade process that's not really developed.
If OpenSUSE did a better job than the kubuntu team, great. Can they help out the Kubuntu team with their fixes?
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 15:45 UTC (Wed) by callegar (guest, #16148) [Link]
As a KDE user (and one who has used KDE for > 10 years) I am much more concerned with the fact that Kubuntu has decided once more to completely disregard the matter of not creating regressions for users, by forcing all who are on ubuntu Utopic into Plasma 5, which is by no means as stable as Plasma 4, nor on parity on features.
I wonder why it was not possible to provide Plasma 4 in Kubuntu until Plasma 5 was on parity with it. The answer that it is not "socially acceptable" (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kubuntu-meta/+b...) while evidently it is socially acceptable to break people's workflows is weird.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 18:55 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
We're at Plasma 5.3 already and the comparison with KDE 4.0 wasn't even fair for Plasma 5.0 as that was closer, feature and stability wise, to the 4.11 release than 4.0 was to 3.5.x.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 20:35 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Not if some other package you use doesn't get updates on that older version (say, Firefox, GIMP, etc.).
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 7:47 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 9:40 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 29, 2015 7:48 UTC (Fri) by krake (guest, #55996) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 29, 2015 8:46 UTC (Fri) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 17:31 UTC (Thu) by callegar (guest, #16148) [Link]
As a side note. If XXX makes a statement of usability and no significant regressions, I think it is a matter of clarity not to call yourself YXXX if you do not want to stick to such statement.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 17:57 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 29, 2015 5:37 UTC (Fri) by callegar (guest, #16148) [Link]
Also note that to have something barely operational you need already to be on a Ppa, as vivid is plasma 5.2
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 29, 2015 13:39 UTC (Fri) by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 29, 2015 13:40 UTC (Fri) by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497) [Link]
I'll blame the Android keyboard.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 9:20 UTC (Wed) by highvoltage (subscriber, #57465) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 9:37 UTC (Wed) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 9:42 UTC (Wed) by thumperward (guest, #34368) [Link]
This reaffirmation appears to imply quite strongly that the Kubuntu Council has rejected that order, and as such is in open defiance of the Ubuntu Community Council, and therefore of Canonical (which plainly controls that body, whether it has "community" in its name or not). I think this is far from over.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 9:47 UTC (Wed) by dholbach (subscriber, #53300) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 12:28 UTC (Wed) by sebas (subscriber, #51660) [Link]
I think it's fair to say that given the optional nature of vote, the right by the CC to appoint their own members, and the permanent nature of Shuttleworth's seat, it's a self-selecting group. It's no stretch to say "Canonical controls the Community Council", at the very least, it's not a democratically elected body.
See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil/Restaffing#Appoi...
Basically, the community membership has a say if "the leadership" wants that. If the leadership decides differently from the community at large, tough luck -- leadership wins. The community council is not bound to the will of the community.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 6:44 UTC (Thu) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 12:52 UTC (Wed) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
(Though I wouldn't say Jonathan has been "asked to step down", from what I read in the email thread on Scott's blog, I'd say it's more like he was told he was gone.)
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 27, 2015 13:52 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 27, 2015 14:54 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 27, 2015 15:43 UTC (Wed) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
I have argued since 2004 that Ubuntu's parasitism has caused more harm than good to the GNU+Linux community. I would argue that we are now past Ubuntu's end of the beginning -- and are starting to see the autophagy accompanying the beginning of the end. I, for one, will welcome it.
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 27, 2015 17:45 UTC (Wed) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link]
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 27, 2015 17:59 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
It is hardly something that can be called solved by anyone until the OS comes pre-installed and that requires OEM support and yes, commercial partners.
"Mobile "markets"? There's that market thing again"
Yep. Welcome to the real world.
"Why would a desktop user care about marketing and "partnerships"?"
Think OEM preinstalls, peripheral support, commercial apps etc.
Debian is not in that game because they are a non-profit organization which is perfectly fine but lets be realistic about what they can accomplish structured the way they are.
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 27, 2015 18:09 UTC (Wed) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link]
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 27, 2015 18:19 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
I am not very hopeful about Linux ever getting much success in the consumer desktop despite running it on my laptop for about a decade or so. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 28, 2015 6:40 UTC (Thu) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 28, 2015 13:32 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
That is a truism. People however are more than willing to pay for desktop support and services and do it all the time.
" hint, if people want to pay, they can, both RHEL and SLES have a enterprise version for workstation which is quite affordable"
Neither are geared towards consumer desktop systems.
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 28, 2015 5:59 UTC (Thu) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link]
From my point of view, Xubuntu is much nicer than the bare bone Xfce available in Debian.
Also this :
http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=avidemux&s...
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=avidemux&...
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 28, 2015 13:47 UTC (Thu) by jpnp (subscriber, #63341) [Link]
Why Ubuntu?
Posted May 30, 2015 0:16 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 16:24 UTC (Wed) by st (subscriber, #96477) [Link]
This is bad PR for Canonical, regardless of what kind of strategic importance Kubuntu holds for them. I think they will now heavily use back-channels to try to restore the status quo. I would expect that they would try to appease Riddell by publicly taking the blame for the Council's lack of progress and promising to be more responsive to the Council and more transparent to the community going forward, and I would expect that they would try to appease the Council by convincing Riddell to issue an apology for being out of line with his behavior towards the Council after Canonical takes the blame for the Council's slow progress. Then the Council can reverse their decision to ban Riddell and everyone can go back to being one big happy family.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 17:33 UTC (Wed) by amacater (subscriber, #790) [Link]
That much began to be made clear 18 months or so ago when development and sponsorship largely transferred from Canonical to Blue.
Debian is at least as usable as Ubuntu and the developers are capable - many of them are also Ubuntu developers, of course, as there is an overlap in personnel.
[Disclaimer: as ever, although I am a Debian developer and have been for many years - this is entirely my own opinion and does not reflect the opinions of the Debian project as a whole or of anybody else]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 27, 2015 19:02 UTC (Wed) by Uraeus (subscriber, #33755) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 0:47 UTC (Thu) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 7:52 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
If they have a problem with a member, they could have discussed it with them and ask one of the other Council members to step up and represent the Council and Kubuntu community.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 15:56 UTC (Thu) by Uraeus (subscriber, #33755) [Link]
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted May 28, 2015 14:09 UTC (Thu) by jpnp (subscriber, #63341) [Link]
That this all seems to be over an underlying issue of the way a commercial organisation protects its trade interest in the word Ubuntu just makes me sad.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted Jun 1, 2015 7:02 UTC (Mon) by txwikinger (subscriber, #57821) [Link]
Why are those two issues so important? If a policy would violate upstream licensing, Ubuntu users would have to be careful to use Ubuntu packages and contributors and upstream may be reluctant to contribute to Ubuntu. Both is detrimental to the community and hence it is an important issue. The fact that it is a legal matter makes it even more important. Waiting for years for an answer seems to be not very helpful because in our fast paced world people just move on.
The second issue is the question about accountability of donations. Again, if donations are possibly not accounted for, it can have a detrimental effect on the community. Even more, when someone takes donations and does not use them according to the stated goal, there may be legal consequences. It could be fraud if there was an intension of different usage from the beginning. Or it could just be negligent control of the funds. However, if that would be a violation of the fiduciary duty towards the donors as well as the potential beneficiaries. This is a very serious matter in law and should not be taken lightly. (I am not saying Canonical is guilty of anything, however, the mailing lists seem to indicate that there seem to exist donations that for whatever reasons there was no possibility to explain what they have been spent on. I am not sure if Canonical is legally obligated to disclose such information, however, I would be surprised if there is no such requirement. Any organisation that wants to solicited my donation, it would be essential for me before I would give any donation).
Unfortunately, the actions of the CC create an appearance that the questions have become inconvenient and dangerous for Canonical and should stop. The CC tries to deny that in their statement, however, without real statements about wrongful behavior, in a world that is just very corrupt (just look at the FIFA at the moment), it is very difficult to just believe people when they ask for trust without showing the proof. That's why people in authority should show more evidence then just a couple of statements that are totally ripped out of context as in the CC statement (http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2015/05/29/community-council-sta...).
Legally and according to the governance policies the CC might have the authority to act the way they did. However, in our fast paced world of communications and from a PR perspective this is not the ideal way to deal with such issues, because it is not a way to create a win-win situation. Now, a situation has been created that one side must lose eventually. One side must back-down or there is a stalemate. And as longer this stalemate continues, more people are hurt, angry and disenfranchised.
Unfortunately, this issues sounds more like the fights for power in political parties (The Pirate Party and the AfD in Germany come to mind) then a group of people who try to create a productive environment, which is a shame. I am also not sure if the CC and SABDFL have thought their decision through long enough to understand all the consequences (I am speculating here since I have not been privy to the discussions). What did they think would happen after they announce something what Jonathan as well as the Kubuntu community would inevitably perceive as punishment? If the goal was that the questions would be stopped, I think it did not work, because now more people are aware of the questions than before. If the goal was to create unity or an collaborative environment (which I believe to be the ultimate spirit of the CoC), it clearly missed the target since the community is more divided than ever before, and a lot of trust on both sides has dissipated, which is really unfortunate. Is there really any net benefit for either side if the whole Kubuntu group or even substantial parts are just pick up the ball and leave?
The most frustrating part of this whole tragedy is that there does not seem to be a solution. We do not have any mediation process that would look for a good solution for all sides. The CC and SABDFL obviously have the power and can enforce whatever they like. Unfortunately, the consequence is division whatever the intentions might have been. And I have to say, looking back at a lot of things I have read on the ubuntu mailing list and IRC channels, I have seen statements by other Ubuntu contributors in leadership positions that are in my opinion far worse than what I have been given about what Jonathan supposedly has said. I do not remember any of those situation ending with the order by the CC to step down. This inequality (in my humble opinion) is something that will further divide the community, which should not be in anyone's interest, nevertheless if it is caused intentionally or unwittingly. There will now be people that will observe every single statement of a CC member (or other people in leadership) and parse it against the CoC. Whenever they will see a bit of light in between they will ask for the removal of this person, which is very disruptive on its own. However, how will the CC respond. Will they start to remove those people for violating the CoC because they insinuate bad faith on those leaders? This has the potential to growing conflicts. Leadership is difficult. However, the best leaders serve in humility rather than command with power.
I still hope there is light at the end of the tunnel, even if I am unable to see it.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted Jun 1, 2015 7:29 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Regards of whether the CC is being reasonable or not, the solution here is just to rotate Riddell out as the CC contact and let someone else on the KC take that role on for awhile....without asking Riddell to step down as a "leader".. just rotate someone else in for a while. If only the CC had made that limited request to rotate someone else in, instead of the larger action involving disbarring Riddell from a leadership position more generally. It doesn't matter if Riddell crossed a line or not. We don't have to assign blame, when admitting there is a problem. Comms are broken and emotions are high, on both sides. Rotating someone else in as the contact point between both groups is a practical way to reset the frustration level a bit.
Jonathan Riddell forced out of Kubuntu
Posted Jun 2, 2015 21:34 UTC (Tue) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
What to my eyes seems more likely is that they knew exactly that it would cause a shit storm, but still judged that a less bad situation than the other options they had. Which just indicates to me how bad the situation is, and how few alternatives they thought they had.
But I don't have a horse in this race and and hope they can all get together over a beer/wine/tea/coffee and sort it out.
Copyright © 2015, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds