Ubuntu Business Remix update

[Mark Shuttleworth]

On 29/01/12 18:38, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Mark, you were surprised that a significant number of developers don't
> consider the partner repository part of Ubuntu. In addition to what
> Laney has pointed out, /etc/apt/sources.list has for years said: ##
> Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ##
> 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is
> offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to
> Ubuntu users. deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner
> deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner The
> python-apt template says nearly the same thing: Suite: precise
> Official: false RepositoryType: deb BaseURI:
> http://archive.canonical.com MatchURI: archive.canonical.com
> _Description: Canonical Partners Component: partner _CompDescription:
> Software packaged by Canonical for their partners
> _CompDescriptionLong: This software is not part of Ubuntu.
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/precise/python-apt/precise/view/head:/data/templates/Ubuntu.info.in

Well, that's a poor choice of words. I maintain it is part of Ubuntu,
and would have no objections to a third-party remix of Ubuntu that
referenced the partner repository. It would of course require agreement
from the individual ISV's, but there would be no reason for them not to
grant it.

Universe and Multiverse were commented out for a long time. I was
surprised when they got uncommented! But there's no real difference here
apart from the need to have a commercial relationship in order to
publish the software.

> Also, because redistribution of partner apps is "not possible", I
> could make a remix of any of the official Ubuntu flavors but I could
> not remix a Ubuntu Business Remix with partner apps pre-installed.
> That alone is an indicator that this is a major change. Jeremy Bicha 

You could make a remix, with apps to which you have distribution rights,
and distribute it. Redistribution is not limited by us, but by the vendor.

Please do not make this more complicated than it already is - the word
has been done, and redone, for the benefit of Ubuntu users, and in a way
that we judged best reflected the relationship of Ubuntu and Canonical.

Mark