Ubuntu Business Remix update

Mark Shuttleworth mark at ubuntu.com
Mon Jan 30 23:31:26 UTC 2012

As a very positive outcome from this, we could ask the team responsible
for Partner to articulate the standards to which they hold work that
goes into that archive. If it's in any way sub-par for reasons that are
not forced by the ISV, we can raise the game. I would not want anyone to
feel that Partner was a rats nest, rather, that it's the best way to get
the stuff that can only be got from an approved source. If need be,
let's change the name, to unredistributable or the like.

My understanding, which could be mistaken, is that:

 * the standards for that archive should be as high as those for SRU's,
since we pump updates there to world+dog and the stuff is exposed via
software center
 * we make the same security commitment there as we do for Ubuntu,
modulo availability of source, so it's the same as restricted in that regard
 * third parties are free to remix from there, to the extent they also
have distribution rights for the relevant bits (Canonical don't assert
any IP in the packaging work)

The 'extras' archive is a good catch, Colin. And the description of a
remix as "you can get here by starting with vanilla Ubuntu and fiddling
around in a package manager" is very useful too. It captures the core
goal of remixes:

 * allow third parties to use the Ubuntu name with very low friction
 * ensure that policy results in things which are, in some clear sense,
compatible with Ubuntu

Would folk be happy if the Partner standards were articulated and
committed, in the way described? FWIW I've asked the team to hold off on
publishing till we've explored this fully together, but if we could
reach agreement by email that would be much appreciated.


More information about the technical-board mailing list