
Canonical, Ltd. On Record: Seeking Open Core - donaq
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html
======
emilsedgh
Whlie I agree with the whole article, there is something wrong with it.

Nokia changed Qt's policy from dual-license, half-open model to a totally
open, community based project, because they werent looking at Qt as a product
to sell.

TrollTech's product was Qt. They used dual-license model to sell it. And it
was partially closed.

Nokia's product is NOT Qt. Qt is a platform which they try to find partners,
developers and community around it. They dont want to make money through Qt.
They want Qt to be a perfect platform and complete transparency and openness
is the way they achieve it.

------
iuguy
In the last millenium I had a few emails trading with the author. The FSF take
the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway.
Canonical don't conform to this definition of Free, instead they have
something different, that probably works better for them.

In a previous life I worked at an Open Source company and we had to put up
with zealotry on a daily basis, both externally and internally. On the one
hand the FSF see themselves as guardians of the Free Software Movement - a
mantle nobody else seems to want to take up. On the other hand, sometimes they
act like douches. This is one such time in which the douche element of the FSF
comes up for air (in my opinion, and yours may differ, there doesn't appear to
be a clear right of wrong).

Canonical own Ubuntu. It's up to them to run it the way they want to. If they
want copyright assignment under their terms, that's their choice, not the
FSF's. If they don't like it they can always fork it, but of course their fork
won't be nearly as popular. This implies that Kuhn wants to have his cake and
eat it, or at least eat Canonical's cake and tell them how to mix the
ingredients.

~~~
masklinn
> The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way
> or the highway.

No. The FSF takes the view that there is one definition of _Free Software_.
Considering it's a concept invented by its creator and one the FSF was
specifically created to defend, I don't see how they could be wrong.

> On the one hand the FSF see themselves as guardians of the Free Software
> Movement

Because they are, that's very specifically what the FSF was created for.

~~~
bad_user
Well, that's why "open source" was coined in the first place, because many
people or companies releasing software under an open-source license feel
uncomfortable about associating their software with any political agenda.

------
pohl
_...the copyleft itself...actually keeps us harmonious._

How can this be said with a straight face in a most unharmonious essay that
decries 1) the practice of adding copyright assignment (above & beyond the
terms of the GPL) to a non-FSF entity and 2) suggests that the GPL is not
sufficient and that additional promises must be made by that entity.

Either the GPL is sufficient to keep participants harmonious or it isn't.

This essay embodies everything that keeps the free software movement from
greatness. I'm grateful that free software was there for me during the dark
ages of computing, but I wish it could be more than an escape valve from
monoculture. Alas, the movement is perpetually suspicious of those who want it
to flourish.

Edit: jdub, I appreciate your reply. Could you be more specific about exactly
which statement of fact is incorrect? "This is factually incorrect" sounds
ominous, but I don't see where you contradicted anything I wrote. Nothing
about our perspectives seems mutually exclusive at all.

~~~
Locke1689
Personally, I'm a big fan of the BSD-style and MIT licenses. I don't care how
or why anyone uses my code, I just want a little credit for writing it.

~~~
ssp
How carefully have you thought about that?

Are you fine with someone integrating your code into a GPL project that
competes with you, and potentially _out_ -competes your project?

~~~
steveklabnik
I have, and I am. If I write some code, and Microsoft takes it and improves
Windows, I've just helped a zillion people, regardless of how much I dislike
Microsoft, and regardless of the fact that I won't see a dime or any credit.

I do think the opposing position has merit, I just don't take the same
position personally.

~~~
ssp
The reason I mentioned a GPL project specifically is that that would be
competing directly with the BSD project for the hearts and minds of the open
source community. For some people I think that would be harder to swallow than
say Microsoft using the code in Windows.

------
whichdokta
The danger of individuals with vast pools of funding is that they can afford
to cause havoc in the community & their bank accounts for years before finally
giving up on ideas that are simply unsustainable inside the ecosystem we have
grown&cared for for so long.

Something to be said for a profit-imperative to keep conversations honest &
feet on the ground.

Canonical has grown a strong brand in huge swathes of previously Microsoft
territory.

They would do well to follow RedHat's example and trade on a reputation for
competence&quality rather than trying to place their faith in various recipes
of secret herbs&spice.

------
jluxenberg
_UbuntuOne, integrated on nearly every menu of the desktop, ... might help
Canonical, Ltd. make a few bucks?_

If you don't like it, fork it, right? Isn't that the main strength of F/OSS?
For example, CentOS is a white-label fork of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The
same argument could be applied to Canonical's inclusion of Adobe Air and Flash
in Ubuntu.

Canonical is targeting a market previous unserved by other Linux distros. To
get to these users, the experience needs to be polished and complete. There's
a reason that, for example, Slackware, isn't going to be installed by your
grandmother...it's too difficult.

~~~
emilsedgh
You cant fork a Company!

But, really, why people bring the 'Ubuntu is polished' argument all the time?
Noone is against it being user friendly. They can be user friendly AND
upstream friendly.

And their upstream happens to be the free software community. And they claim
they respect it. And they dont.

~~~
ebtalley
Ubuntu is polished to a point, kind of like a ball of mud can be polished to a
high sheen. There "are" issues that continue to plague Linux in the Desktop
department. To say that Ubuntu is polished enough for grandma to _really_
interact with the machine without root is silly IMHO.

~~~
BCM43
> There "are" issues that continue to plague Linux in the Desktop department.

I'd be interested in knowing what you are referring to here.

~~~
ebtalley
Things like not being able to delete files out of your trash because the
permissions are set such that you need to sudo rm -rf ~/.Trash/ _

------
mrud
A reply from Alex Hudson <http://www.alexhudson.com/2010/10/17/bkuhn-on-
canonical/>

------
igravious
In the humanities, one way into a text is through close reading. So here goes
(just the first paragraph mind you because this can get tiring).

>>> I've written before about my deep skepticism regarding the true motives of
Canonical, Ltd.'s advocacy and demand of for-profit corporate copyright
assignment without promises to adhere to copyleft.

There is nothing wrong with Canonical requiring copyright assignment. The FSF
do it, SUN did it, I would guess Microsoft does it. It is not unusual for a
corporation to be a for-profit entity. There is no way someone would do unpaid
work for somebody else and get nothing in return unless they were a slave or
forced to do so. How would it be even possible to contribute to a Canonical
project if you are not part of Canonical if the codebase is not freely
accessible or at least in some way open?

>>> I've often asked Canonical employees, including Jono Bacon, Amanda Brock,
Jane Silber, Mark Shuttleworth himself, and — in the comments of this very
blog post — Matt Asay to explain (a) why exactly they demand copyright
assignment on their projects, rather than merely having contributors agree to
the GNU GPL formally (like projects such as Linux do),

That's interesting because the issue of copyright assignment arose when SCO
started the whole litigation thing against Linux (well, Linux companies).
Also, again, canonical is a for-profit corp, Linux is a (as you say) project
so you can't compare them. I wonder what the policy of the Linux Foundation
is?

>>> and (b) why, having received a contributor's copyright assignment,
Canonical, Ltd. refuses to promise to keep the software copylefted and never
proprietarize it (FSF, for example, has always done the latter in
assignments).

Why should they promise? It's not their job to promise such things. The,
again, are a corporation and have to look after themselves. They are not the
FSF which is as far as I remember, a charity. What does Redhat do? Or Novell?
We know that SUN required copyright assignment for OOo so it's not
unreasonable for corps to have this requirement. If your issue is with code
being worked on by individuals not employed by Canonical, with that work then
being used in non GPL projects and with the copyright assignment of that work
being handed over to Canonical then fair enough - please show me how this
happens and where.

>>> When I ask these questions of Canonical, Ltd. employees, they invariably
artfully change the subject.

Seriously. Citation please.

------
mhw
Anyone care to explain how Canonical requiring copyright assignment for
contributions to their projects is different from Red Hat requiring a
Contributor License Agreement for contributions to Spacewalk, their now-open-
source Red Hat Network code-base?

At first glance it seems that Canonical ask for copyright assignment and then
'grant a very broad license back', while Red Hat let the contributor retain
copyright but ask for a similarly broad license for their use of the
contribution. Other than the name in the copyright statement, it's difficult
to see there's much difference in the control over downstream use of the
contributed code, and it's potential for downstream (mis-)use that the
original article seems to be primarily concerned about.

Yes, the disparity between the contributor agreements is confusing and
requires potential contributors to put their legal head on to work out what
they're agreeing to for each project they want to contribute to. That's where
the free-software/open-source licenses were a few years ago before efforts
were made to catalogue them and reduce their number somewhat (largely by The
Open Source Initiative, I seem to remember). And that seems to be the problem
that Project Harmony is trying to tackle.

So, are there real differences between these two instances? I'm having trouble
spotting the objective difference between 'This set of policies has some
flaws' in one case and 'copyright assignment intimidation tactics' in the
other.

~~~
rfontana
Red Hat no longer requires a CLA for contributions to Spacewalk. We realized
it was a bad policy: [https://www.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-
devel/2010-August/...](https://www.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-
devel/2010-August/msg00024.html)

~~~
bkuhn
@rfontana, You should updated the SpaceWalk wiki to be clear. It still links
to the old CLA. See: <https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/wiki/PatchProcess> I
am glad you changed the process, I'm going to update this.

~~~
rfontana
@bkuhn, that's generally the responsibility of Spacewalk project developers,
of which I am not one. If anyone signs the CLA, we'll tear it up.

------
Mithrandir
It's too bad that Canonical has, in effect, surfed the wave of free software,
but refused to be a integral part of it, as they really could be. It's
disappointing that they are "open-source" but not free.

Including Adobe Air and Flash in their repository is really disheartening, but
so is UbuntuOne.

I'm not exactly pro-Red Hat either... <http://tinyurl.com/27x6c59>

No bias here folks, I'm using Ubuntu right now! I also use Fedora, Trisquel,
and gNewSense, but Ubuntu is my "main" OS. I also like how they've cleared up
some of the cryptic messages in their software center (Licence: Unknown to
Licence: Proprietary).

I'm just _very_ concerned about free software.

~~~
macco
What is, in essence, the real difference between free and open source?

~~~
Mithrandir
Open source (or should I say, the catchphrase open-source) lets you "see" the
source code, but not use it. It's more loose than:

Free software (some call it "libre") lets you see _and_ use the source code.

Proprietary does not let you do either.

Some software makers call their software "open-source" when it's really free,
and some call their software "free" when it's really just "open".

<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>

~~~
FooBarWidget
That's nonsense. Open source is defined by the Open Source Definition as
published by the OSI. <http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd> Read section 3,
Derived Works. Putting a source tarball online with a license that says "you
can read this source but you can't do anything else with it" doesn't make it
open source.

~~~
Mithrandir
I was talking about the catchphrase "open-source", not what the OSI talks
about.

<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html>

------
macco
I think Mark Shuttleworth is right, when he tries to improve the Ubuntu
ecosystem. I needs more than code to have a great computing experience. People
miss the point, when the critisize Canonical so often.

~~~
SwellJoe
What about this article makes you believe Shuttleworth is focused on
"improving the Ubuntu ecosystem" with his position on copyright assignment?

It seems to pretty clearly show focus on improving the Canonical bottom line,
to me. Which is also fine...but, Open Source fans should be aware of what
motivates the organizations they work with. Red Hat and Debian have a _long_
history of choosing openness and freedom over control and profit (though Red
Hat still manages to be the most profitable Linux vendor). Canonical has a
less stellar record, generally speaking, with a history of unilateral
decision-making, and questionable motives.

Note that I'm not at all opposed to the idea of so-called "Open Core"
software. Virtualmin and Cloudmin are effectively Open Core projects, with
proprietary additions being where our profits come from. But, we don't have
any non-employee contributors to speak of (we get a bugfix patch every three
months or so, on average). Whereas Ubuntu is 99+% code written by non-
employees. Their contributions to Gnome, arguably the most important single
aspect of the famous Ubuntu "ease of use", are miniscule compared to Red Hat
and several others. And, of course, I'm not saying that Canonical shouldn't be
praised for their 1% contribution to Gnome. It's just that their contributions
do not justify the level of control they desire over the community, and that
the free software community should be highly suspicious when Canonical make
these kinds of power grabs.

In short, Canonical historically isn't all that great of a community member,
and this is one more example of them putting the desires of Canonical above
the desires of the Open Source community in importance. Open Core is fine, if
they want to do it with their own entirely in-house written code. But, it
sounds like they want the culture of Open Source to start shifting in the
direction of corporate-led Open Source projects, even in situations where non-
profits and communities are currently leading effectively (like Gnome).

~~~
forgottenpaswrd
"Their contributions to Gnome are miniscule compared to Red Hat and several
others."

No, they are not minuscule. I could not use Red Hat and several others(suse,
mandriva...) because for me, and for many others Linux was a pain to use, with
obvious design flaws.

Red Hat and others could not care less about the "normal user", they care
about companies, witch is fine, but they made very little actual contributions
to me if I could not use it.

There is no problem having an "Open Core" strategy if the code is GPL, and you
could see it. They give the company(in this case Canonical) control over the
design, witch is fine too. If you don't like it you could fork or create a new
project.

Way easier to criticize than do anything.

~~~
SwellJoe
"Way easier to criticize than do anything."

Yes, it is, and I do both. I've written code that ships in Ubuntu (and Debian,
and Red Hat, and Fedora, and FreeBSD, etc.), and I've worked on Open Source
projects for over a dozen years. I believe that grants me a right to speak on
the subject, particularly since I'm not advocating a position that benefits me
in any way; it merely presents my opinion as an Open Source contributor of
many years.

------
djacobs
I'm not intimately familiar with the details of this debate. So I have the
following semi-organized line of thought, and I'd love feedback.

This line of thought comes from curiosity, not because of an agenda. I really
don't know what tack I should be taking here, so insight is welcome.

Is there a problem with a company taking source code that I've licensed as
free to use (code that I haven't bothered to make consumer-friendly, just
well-written) and then turn that into a viable product, where the core of the
product--my core--is very much open source? If not this way, then how will the
vast majority of open-source products find acceptable use to the everyday
consumer in the market of applications?

It seems to me like many open source programs don't strive to improve the user
experience, at least very rapidly. For example, OpenOffice (to me) could use a
lot of tweaking, at least in GNOME. For such an open product, I can't modify
very much about the interface as a user. Of course, I could go in and recode
part of the application to my liking. But I probably don't want to expend that
kind of effort just to get a suitable (to me) looking product. Evolution also
comes to mind. There are changes that I find obvious and pressing--appearance
settings, more minimalist interface, better interface with an external
contacts manager--but have yet to improve. Where will the impetus for these
kinds of changes come from if there is no monetary incentive?

If allowing a company to add proprietary UI goodness on top of an open source
core means that we get solid products with a secure, beautiful, open base,
what is not to like? If a developer can develop solid, clean libraries and
then license his product for other companies to follow through with design
that he doesn't want to do, why not support his decision to do so?

Especially in an arena where standards and interoperability are valued, it
seems like allowing a company to use open source code in its proprietary
software won't harm data portability or open source ideals. For example, say
some startup X takes OpenOffice's core and redoes it using slick GTK and
innovative UI elements. The company will likely fail unless its quasi-
proprietary software supports open document format standards. (Interop with
existing standards is likely key to success in current data processing
markets.) If indeed it does support those standards, and I know what the core
source code is, what do I care if the UI code is proprietary? I get a solid
program out of it and can take my data elsewhere without conversion if I
become dissatisfied.

It seems to me like the alternative to a hybrid model is a developer-centric
platform and ecosystem that lacks many end-users to develop for. I love Ubuntu
because its commandline and developer tools are fantastic, really a pleasure
to use. But I have maybe 10 friends who also use Linux. So I could develop
useful applications for myself or other developers, but not for too many end
users. Without compelling UI, this situation isn't likely to change, right?

I know that Ubuntu is making headway in the UI department, and I think 10.10
is slick. Is that a result of the movement toward OpenCore described in this
article?

~~~
bad_user

        I love Ubuntu because its commandline and developer 
        tools are fantastic, really a pleasure to use
    

Then you should give credit where credit is due: to Debian, not Ubuntu.

I love Ubuntu for their UI breakthroughs, but I'm only tolerating them for
stealing Debian's work as long as Ubuntu stays free (as in price).

If you want to sell your Linux distribution, at least build it yourself.

    
    
        So I could develop useful applications for myself or 
        other developers, but not for too many end users. 
    

If your app is so dependent on GTK+ as to be unportable to other platforms,
you're doing it wrong.

~~~
kingkilr
> stealing Debian's work

That's a completely unfair statement. I wasn't aware following the license of
an open source statement constituted stealing.

~~~
sprout
That was more a hypothetical.

