Ubuntu Business Remix update
mark at ubuntu.com
Tue Jan 24 09:41:35 UTC 2012
Allison made me aware of an off-list discussion amongst the TB regarding
the Business Remix. Here's an update from my perspective, and to avoid
further confusion please keep me and/or the CC in the loop on similar
conversations in future.
* The work has been done as a remix specifically to avoid concerns
about Canonical's best work on packages going into anything other than
the archives which are widely available. The team had to re-do their
work to meet this requirement.
* Steve Langasek raised a concern with me, that Partner might not be
considered "part of Ubuntu" for remix purposes. That was a surprise to
me, and is a simple omission rather than intended outcome. We index
Partner packages in the Software Center - they are as much part of
Ubuntu as multiverse it - they reflect packages where redistribution is
not possible, and Canonical has to be directly involved as a contractual
requirement of the ISV. We should simply clarify this in the remix
guidelines if it is an issue.
* There is no new precedent on proprietary bits here - remixes can
certainly already pull from restricted and multiverse.
* To avoid a delta in the installer and other packages, the EULA's of
included packages from Partner will be presented through the web on
download rather than in the installer or desktop UX.
I don't believe there are any technical issues that warrant concern on
the part of the TB, but am happy to be part of the discussion if you
feel otherwise. From a CC perspective, again I don't believe there are
policy questions or concerns. We would have no issue if a third party
published a remix of this nature. It was a debate as to whether the name
should be "Canonical Business Desktop" or "Ubuntu Business Desktop", we
felt the awkwardness of differentiating this from Ubuntu was very high -
we do not want to be lumped in the same category as "Fedora / RHEL" as
it is a completely different proposition from both Ubuntu and Canonical.
There's no legal issue w.r.t. the trademark, both because this is a
remix (and within guidelines for the use of the name) and because
Canonical owns the mark in the first place.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the technical-board