AcrobatReader: A bug or intentionally?

[Malcolm Yates]

On Monday 23 April 2007 12:22:23 anthony baldwin wrote:
> Ali Milis wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am still confused. AcrobatReader IS in the pool; but not
> >available through feisty. Is that intentionally or a bug?
>
All, Sorry to come to this late, but I hope the main respondents see this.

For Canonical to redistribute software - ie to include it on the repos managed 
by us, we have to be legally certain that any software included is totally 
redistributable.

This definition is almost always met by GPL LGPL Mozilla Artistic Postcard or 
any other recognised open source licences, and so long as we are able, we 
will accept these packages into main or universe  ( just conveniently 
forgetting restricted and multiverse for the time being )

For us to redistribute proprietary licenced software ( that software for which 
we have to have an agreement with the author / vendor  to do so ) we must 
maintain control to meet that licencing.

Hence you will find the likes of Realplayer in the commercial repository, as 
there are restrictions on how this code is redistributed. 

You can argue over which licences you like, or which are immoral, but the 
point is that anyone is free to licence their products in anyway they wish, 
and we, as a commercial company, respect those wishes. ( both legally, 
through contractual agreements, and commercially - we do not give away 
products that would otherwise be charged for )

In the case of Adobe, we have no such agreements, and so their products are 
not included in any repository that Canonical has jurisdiction over. If we 
had such a legally binding agreement to redistribute, then we would, and such 
products would almost certainly be placed in the commercial repo due to the 
restrictions placed by the authors.

The commercial repo is there so that only Canonical redistributes the code. ( 
only Canonical has access to this repo, and there is only one physical 
version of it ). Universe and main for instance, are mirrored, and so we do 
not have any control over who has access to the code in those repos.

Hence, you may think that we can redistribute what we like if it is 
deemed 'free' by the masses, but we are aware of the many and various 
restrictions placed on redistribution by owners / authors of software.

Oh, and btw, just because a product is in the commercial repo does not mean 
that there is a restrictive licence to care for : it may just be that it is 
the easiest way to deliver a package / application to our users. 

Hope that makes sense.

Malcolm Yates
ISV and Partner Manager .... at Canonical


> Hardly matters, since we have Xpdf and Kpdf and about half a dozen other
> .pdf readers available.
>
> /tony
>
> --
> http://www.baldwinlinguas.com
> http://www.photodharma.com
> --------BEGIN GEEK CODE--------
> Version: 3.1
> GED/FA/H/L$ d-- s-:-- a C++ L+++ W++ w--- M PS++ PE-- PGP+ t+ tv-- b++++ G
> e++++ h---- r++++ y++++ --------END GEEK CODE----------



-- 
***** Please note the new address and telephones !! *****
Ubuntu - Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com		http://www.canonical.com
-------------------
Grusse/Cordialement/Saluti/Saludos/Med Venlig Helsning/Saygilarimla
Mail			: Canonical Ltd, MillBank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP UK
-------------------