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

[Jonathan Riddell]

Lovely thanks very much for asking them

Jonathan


On 4 May 2015 at 20:41, Benjamin Kerensa <bkerensa at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> Categorize this message as:
> Never show this again
> Here is a response I got from Joshua Gay, Licensing Compliance Manager,
> FSF (a friend) regarding this topic:
>
> "The FSF contacted Canonical in July 2013 to share some concerns and to
> ask them some questions about the Policy. In February of 2014, the FSF
> asked our lawyers at the Software Freedom Law Center to join us in our
> discussions with Canonical. Since that time, the FSF, with the help of
> SFLC, has been providing feedback to Canonical on new draft revisions to
> the Canonical policy document. Canonical delivered to the FSF a proposed
> final draft of a new version of their policy document earlier this year.
> Canonical has been waiting for final feedback from the FSF before they
> publish a new draft of their policy. The FSF will be providing what we
> hope is a final round of feedback to Canonical in the coming days. We
> assume once they have received our feedback that a new version of the
> Policy document will be published shortly thereafter.  After that, the
> FSF will publish a short blog post outlining the concerns we had with
> the policy published in May 2013, what improvements we believe have been
> made with the new policy published by Canonical, as well as whatever
> outstanding concerns we might have with that new policy."
>
> This should probably address the concerns anyone had regarding this
> policy.
> We should look towards their respective blogs for an announcement and
> more detail in the coming days, weeks or months.
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Charles Profitt <ubuntu at cprofitt.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I want to be clear about this.
>>
>> The CC has dealt with this issue. We did not issue the statement Jonathan
>> demanded, but we did issue a statement. Jonathan does not agree with the
>> statement, but that does not imply nothing was done. I think we have said
>> this previously in this thread, but I hope that clarifies things.
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> ---- On Mon, 04 May 2015 09:42:27 -0700 *Randall Ross 
>> <randall at ubuntu.com <randall at ubuntu.com>>* wrote ----
>>
>> In the time it took to write this thread, there could have been several
>> meetings with Canonical legal and likely a resolution.
>>
>> ... This tells me that community processes aren't working, or people
>> simply like to pontificate ;)
>>
>> Since UOS is imminent/now, how about someone on the CC stepping up to
>> facilitate a Hangout on two topics:
>>
>> 1) Community process for raising/resolving legal questions,
>> 2) The Jonathan Riddell question/thread.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Randall.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ubuntu-community-team mailing list
>> Ubuntu-community-team at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ubuntu-community-team mailing list
>> Ubuntu-community-team at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Benjamin Kerensa*
> *http://benjaminkerensa.com <http://benjaminkerensa.com>*
> *"I am what I am because of who we all are" - Ubuntu*
>
> --
> Ubuntu-community-team mailing list
> Ubuntu-community-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/attachments/20150504/cb4fdc96/attachment-0001.html>