Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Legally open, socially closed

Filed under
OSS
Ubuntu

Much has been said lately about the revenue sharing decision made by Canonical in regards to the Banshee music store sales, starting with the announcement on Jono Bacon’s blog. This was soon followed by posts questioning how the decision and announcements were handled. Sense Hofstede followed up with an excellent post discussing the value of Ubuntu as a distribution channel complimenting the value of Banshee as a product.

What I haven’t seen discussed, and what I would like to bring up, is this often cited but never quite defined notion of the moral or ethical restrictions on the use of FLOSS.

The legal question

By releasing Banshee under the terms of the GPL MIT license (as was pointed out to me in the comments), it’s developers have given Canonical and anybody else the legal ability to change it however they want. Canonical would have been legally within their rights to keep 100% of all Amazon sales commission.

rest here




More in Tux Machines

Debian-Based Distribution Updated With KDE 3.5 Forked Desktop

Q4OS 1.2 "Orion" is the new release that is re-based on Debian Jessie, focused on shipping its own desktop utilities and customizations, and designed to run on both old and new hardware. Read more

Atom Shell is now Electron

Atom Shell is now called Electron. You can learn more about Electron and what people are building with it at its new home electron.atom.io. Read more Also: C++ Daddy Bjarne Stroustrup outlines directions for v17

A Fedora 22 beta walk-through

The new Fedora, with its GNOME 3.16 interface, is an interesting, powerful Linux desktop. Read more Also: Web software center for Fedora Red Hat's Cross-Selling and Product Development Will Power Long-Term Growth Red Hat Updates Open Source Developer and Admin Tools

Unix and Personal Computers: Reinterpreting the Origins of Linux

So, to sum up: What Linus Torvalds, along with plenty of other hackers in the 1980s and early 1990s, wanted was a Unix-like operating system that was free to use on the affordable personal computers they owned. Access to source code was not the issue, because that was already available—through platforms such as Minix or, if they really had cash to shell out, by obtaining a source license for AT&T Unix. Therefore, the notion that early Linux programmers were motivated primarily by the ideology that software source code should be open because that is a better way to write it, or because it is simply the right thing to do, is false. Read more Also: Anti-Systemd People