Oracle intersted in buying Ubunutu

[Anders Karlsson]

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 14:49 +1000, Alexander Jacob Tsykin wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 April 2006 08:42, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > To me, Linux is Linux.  Being an old hippie, I'm here for the philosophy
> > and, "...humanity toward others.".
> > If Oracle or any other corporate entity is in, I'm out and danged
> > quickly.  /IF/ this happens then, Debian, here I (and others I'm sure)
> > come again.
> >
> > Cybe R. Wizard
> Let me start by saying I am NOT in favour of selling Ubuntu, so please don't 
> flame me. 
> 
> If Linux is to take on Microsoft and win, it will have to have commercial 
> backers. End of story. If this means that Oracle, or Novell, or Redhat or any 
> other company interested in Linux is to have a say in the direction of the 
> Operating System, then so be it.

Uhm, so you consider Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical to be 'non
commercial backing'?

First, it would be good to get the terminology straight. 'Linux' is the
kernel, nothing more, nothing less. 'Linux' on its own will not win
against Microsoft and the comparison is that of apples and oranges.
'Linux' is already backed by some of the biggest corporations on the
planet, notably, IBM is donating technology to it for example.
Ubuntu, of which 'Linux' is a crucial part, already have excellent
commercial backing in the shape of Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth. Why
would Novell or RedHat be interested in trying to acquire Canonical and
Ubuntu??

I was young and foolish once upon a time, and I typed first and thought
later, usually *after* hitting 'Send'. I am older now, still foolish and
still hit 'Send' to soon, but less frequently. I believe you will get
there in time as well.

> T illustrate this, consider the fiasco of GPLv3. Linus Torvalds said that the 
> Linux kernel will not be under this license, because of its anti-DRM 
> provisions. While he doesn't approve of DRM (and neither do I), he 
> understands that many companies will not invest in Linux if they cannot use 
> DRM, and he is above all a pragmatist. 

You fail it again. GPLv3 does not happen with the Linux kernel partly
because the gpg signing keys would become considered DRM and have to be
handed out as well. Not clever and not going to happen. Would you feel
comfortable handing out your private keys just because of a poorly
worded license agreement? I know what my response is to anyone asking
for my private key or pass phrase - and it ain't a pleasant one...

Also, if GPLv2 does everything that is required for the Linux kernel
project, why change?

> For Linux to succeed, we are going to have to make some compromises with 
> principle. Linus Torvalds understands this. So does Mark Shuttleworth 
> (consider that he has not locked proprietary code out of the distribution, 
> far from it, he gave it its own repository, the multiverse). While the 
> multiverse is not supported, you can actually activate by pressing a button 
> in Synaptic, it is one of the core acknowledged Ubuntu repositories.

There is being pragmatic and there is compromising on principles and
there is selling your soul to the devil.

For Ubuntu to strike through to corporate desktops, it has to be able to
provide what is needed on corporate desktops. Not all of that is free as
in speech. Locking it out of the distro (making it impossible to
install) would not be very clever. This is the pragmatic part, you can
install whatever commercial software you like, and Ubuntu will not stop
you. The principles part is not compromised, as multiverse is not
shipped with Ubuntu. You have to do something to get it. Housing
pre-packaged free as in beer (or to pay for) software in a single, easy
to get to, place makes business sense.

I disagree with you on multiverse being 'core' to Ubuntu. It's a bolt-on
for whizz-bang stuff that you may find useful, a bit like marillat's
repository.

> Ultimately, we will have to cooperate with commercial ventures, and the only 
> question is how much? I am in favour of corporate investment as long as the 
> community still has a voice, so why not allow them to buy the forums? As fr 
> Ubuntu itself, all the intellectual rights are owned by the Ubuntu 
> foundation, and I would be against it selling them.

Co-operate with commercial ventures, business as usual you mean? If your
idea of co-operation would be for Canonical to become a batty-boy for
companies like Oracle and Microsoft I have seriously misjudged you.

Just consider Malone #1 for a minute. No, make that 24 hours. Then we
can talk again on this issue.

By all means flog the web forum to highest bidder, as long as the links
to the mailing lists are severed at the same time. 

-- 
Anders Karlsson <trudheim at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3838 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20060419/b0360f78/smime.bin