Ubuntu Business Remix update

Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) jonathan at ubuntu.com
Tue Jan 31 09:27:12 UTC 2012


If I may chime in? ...

On 31/01/2012 10:18, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> On 31/01/12 05:02, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> At least from my point of view, this misses the concern. Partner is a
>> private Canonical archive that Ubuntu developers are completely
>> uninvolved with. It is even less a part of Ubuntu than non-free is
>> part of Debian. I don't think we need to retroactively declare Partner
>> part of Ubuntu to allow the business remix to go forward and I think
>> it will be damaging to Ubuntu as a free software project to do so.
> Is there a mechanism you can think of which would allow, say, VMWare
> software to be 'part of Ubuntu'? From my perspective:
>   * it would need to be exposed in the software center
>   * it would need a counterparty to a VMWare distribution agreement,
>   * it would need to be packaged to a high standard, modulo the
> constraints imposed by the ISV

What if there's a packaging bug in partner? Would Ubuntu developers be 
able to fix it and upload it?

>> From a user perspective, it would need to represent the 'best and
> recommended way to consume that software on Ubuntu'.
> Having an archive backed by Canonical allows us (Ubuntu) to enable users
> to use their standard tools across a wider range of software. It saves
> them from tarballs, install scripts, wget | sudo etc ;-)

Is it possible to have a Canonical backed archive that is completely 
integrated into the Ubuntu project? Fall under an Ubuntu.com domain, fit 
into the Ubuntu governance structure (TB, CC, DMB, etc could vote on 
issues regarding the archive), etc?

Surely there's more to having it officially part of Ubuntu than having 
it available in Software Center?

>>>   * 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)
>> I'm not aware of anyone having recent complaints about the quality of
>> packaging in Partner.  This isn't, at least to me, about how well Partner is
>> working, it's about what it is.
> Indeed :)
> But can we at least agree that Partner should work well? Perhaps ask for
> a review of what's in there and steer it in a better direction, if there
> are concerns? I would feel the TB should be comfortable expressing a
> view on *how* to achieve that goal, I'm less comfortable with the TB
> expressing a view on whether that's a goal for the project, but then I
> respect all the folk *on* the TB, all of whom are also long term and
> senior project leaders, which is why it makes sense to engage in the thread.

What's wrong with the TB expressing their views on the goals for the 
project in terms of the Partner repository? I'd expect nothing less from 
a board like the TB!


More information about the technical-board mailing list