[Solar-general] Canonical, Ltd. Finally On Record: Seeking Open Core

[Marcos Germán Guglielmetti]

On Sunday 17 October 2010 14:52:20 Pablo Manuel Rizzo wrote:
> Inevitably, I end up on planes next to some corporate executive. They look
> at me a few times, and then say: Hey, I know you, you're Roger Moore
> [audience laughs]. What I want to know, is what the hell have you got
> against *profit*? What's wrong with profit, anyway? The answer I give is
> simple: There's nothing wrong with profit at all. The question I'm raising
> is: What lengths are acceptable to achieve profit? We all agree that we
> can't exploit child labor and other such things, even if that helps
> profitability. Yet, once upon a time, these sorts of horrible policies were
> acceptable for corporations. So, my point is that we still need more
> changes to balance the push for profit with what's right for workers.
>
> I quote this at length to make it abundantly clear: I'm not opposed to
> Canonical, Ltd. making a profit by supporting software freedom. I'm glad
> that Shuttleworth has contributed a non-trivial part of his personal wealth
> to start a company that employs many excellent FLOSS developers (and even
> sometimes lets those developers work on upstream projects). But the
> question really is: Are the values of software freedom worth giving up
> merely to make Canonical, Ltd. profitable? Should we just accept that
> proprietary network services like
> UbuntuOne<https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntuone-servers/+bug/375272>,
> integrated on nearly every menu of the desktop, as reasonable merely
> because it might help Canonical, Ltd. make a few bucks? Do we think we
> should abandon copyleft's assurances of fair treatment to all, and hand
> over full proprietarization powers on GPL'd software to for-profit
> companies, merely so they can employ a few FLOSS developers to work
> primarily on non-upstream projects?
>

muy bueno

> I don't think so. I'm often critical of Red Hat, but one thing they do get
> right in this regard is a healthy encouragement of their developers to
> start, contribute to, and maintain upstream projects that live in the
> community rather than inside Red Hat. Red Hat currently allows its
> engineers to keep their own copyrights and license them under whatever
> license the upstream project uses, binding them to the terms of the
> copyleft licenses (when the upstream project is copylefted). Red Hat even
> encourages outside contributors to give under their own copyright under the
> outbound license Red Hat chose for its projects (some of which are also
> copylefted). This set of policies has some flaws (details of which are
> beyond the scope of this post), but it's orders of magnitude better than
> the copyright assignment intimidation tactics that other companies, like
> Canonical, Ltd., now employ.
>
> So, don't let a friendly name like “Harmony” fool you. Our community has
> some key infrastructure, such as the copyleft itself, that *actually* keeps
> us harmonious. Contributor agreements aren't created
> equal<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/01/copyright-not-all-equal.html>,
> and therefore we should oppose the idea that contributor and assignment
> agreements should be set to the lowest common denominator to enable a
> for-profit corporate land-grab that Shuttleworth and other “Open Core”
> proponents seek. I also strongly advise the organizations and individuals
> who are assisting Canonical, Ltd. in this goal to stop immediately,
> particularly now that Shuttlew



-- 
                   Marcos Guglielmetti
                            ▲
::::::::::::::::::      M U S I X   :::::::::::::::::::::                  
                            ▼
		    www.musix.org.ar
	             www.ovejafm.com

_______________________________________________
Para encontrarte con activistas del movimiento social del software libre envia 
un mail a solar.general en librelist.com y luego respondé el mail de bienvenida.

PD: usen dukgo.com en vez de google
es genial y va camino a ser totalmente libre ¡y no te espía! :-D

¿Cuáles serían las libertades esenciales en Medios de Comunicación Libres? 
listas, sitios, etc.
0) La libertad de usar los medios de comunicación con cualquier propósito 
(uso)
1) La libertad de auditar los medios de comunicación y adaptarlos a tus 
necesidades. El acceso a los paneles de administración es una condición 
previa para esto. (estudio)
2) La libertad de crear otros usuarios y medios de comunicación, con lo que 
puedes ayudar a tu prójimo. (copia)
3) La libertad de modificar en los medios de comunicación y hacer públicas las 
mejoras a los demás, de modo que toda la comunidad se beneficie. El acceso al 
panel de administración es un requisito previo para esto. (mejora)