<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi folk 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. Mark </body> </html>