Re: Canonical’s IPRights Policy incompatible with Ubuntu licence policy

[Jono Bacon]

On 2 May 2015 at 16:52, Valorie Zimmerman <valorie.zimmerman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Naturally. As a matter of fact, I believe that Canonical is acting in
> good faith. However, I don't think their legal team is giving them
> good advice, and Jonathon showed the evidence of that.

>From what I can tell Jonathan didn't provide any evidence of a
response or advice from the Canonical legal team. Jonathan, can you
clarify to us exactly what the response from the Canonical legal team
has been on this matter?


> I don't like that we seem to be at odds with one another. I do not
> consider Kubuntu to be apart from the Ubuntu community in any way, any
> more than Ubuntu Women or any of the other parts of Ubuntu that I'm
> involved in, like my loco. Which, by the way, ran a successful table
> in conjunction with KDE and the Oregon Loco at Linuxfest Northwest
> last weekend. Many ISOs were burned and given away, along with
> tshirts, stickers, pens etc.

I don't think anyone here is saying that Kubuntu is apart from the
Ubuntu community. I think we would all agree that we are all in this
together, both Ubuntu, flavors, and different teams.

> Criticism of various policies that Canonical has in place are not
> criticisms of the CC or the Ubuntu Community. Nor does criticism make
> us enemies. I still consider Michael and Jono friends, right along
> with Jonathon and Rohan. I appreciate the sponsorship the Community
> has given me in the past to attend Kubuntu days at Akademy, and am
> thankful for that again this year.
>
> We are all on the same side here. Criticism does not make us enemies,
> or even opponents. We all want a healthy Ubuntu community, and a
> healthy free ecosystem. Jumping to the defense of wrong-headed
> policies is not necessary.
>
> The content on Ubuntu.com reflects on all of us, and should express
> our shared values.

Again, no one here is suggesting that criticism is a bad thing.
Criticism is good, so long as it is constructive.

All that is happening here is that you are hearing a consistent
response that this is a matter that should be discussed with Canonical
first. The legal policy and IP definition is created, policed, and
managed by Canonical and their legal team. The discussion needs to
start there first to ensure that the right people are speaking to you.

As I said previously, if after a comprehensive discussion with
Canonical you are still dissatisfied, it then becomes something
suitable for the CC. Speaking personally though, at that point I
wouldn't bring it to the CC, I would bring it to Mark Shuttleworth,
Jane Silber, and Rick Spencer as I think this is still largely a
Canonical issue, and if the legal team are not engaging appropriately,
Canonical management should know about it.

     Jono