<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head><body ><div style='font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;'>tuSee my replies in-line:un <div class="zmail_extra"><div id="1"> ---- On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 05:00:55 -0700 Jonathan Riddell <jr@jriddell.org> wrote ---- </div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #0000FF;padding-left: 6px; margin: 0 0 0 5px">I'd like to request that the Community Council moves the Canonical IP policy off the Ubuntu website. <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy" target="_blank">http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy</a> It was revealed last week that is policy breached the GPL and still leaves open numerous gaps in the ability of people to freely share, copy and modify Ubuntu. It is hurting the reputation of Ubuntu as a welcoming and functional free software project that respects the licence of the upstreams we depend on. For example: For example Bradley Khun says "Their policy, as currently drafted, is rather obviously designed to convince people it's easier to buy a license from Canonical, Ltd. than to figure out how to engage in normal Free Software redistribution behaviours for a distribution." <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/article/2950117/opensource-subnet/open-source-experts-sound-off-on-canonicals-ubuntu-ip-policy-reaching-gpl-compliance.html" target="_blank">http://www.networkworld.com/article/2950117/opensource-subnet/open-source-experts-sound-off-on-canonicals-ubuntu-ip-policy-reaching-gpl-compliance.html</a> While former tech board member Matthew Gattet blogs "explanation of why you shouldn't ship container images based on Ubuntu" <a href="http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/36312.html" target="_blank">http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/36312.html</a> I've tried explaining numerous times over the last week that Canonical's IP policy is no more relevant to Ubuntu than KDE's policy or Microsoft's because of course we follow the Ubuntu licence policy in everything we allow into the archive and the image we create. <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing" target="_blank">http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing</a> </blockquote> I am not sure I can agree with all the assumptions and assertions above, but I do agree that the current policy is not as clear as I would like to see it. I do have questions about how the Ubuntu License Policy [1], the CLA [2] and the current IP Policy [3] line up with regards to encouraging a healthy developer community. <blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #0000FF;padding-left: 6px; margin: 0 0 0 5px">But while Canonical's policy is on our website people get understandably confused and advise people not to use Ubuntu or take part in contributing to it. So will the CC get this removed from our website promptly? </blockquote> I have urged the Community Council to proactively seek feedback from all flavors on the current policy so that that information can be passed on to Canonical. From my personal standpoint I would rather put energy in to requesting a clarification of the policy as I am not sure moving the policy truly has any impact on the situation. To help me understand your point of view what do you think would be accomplished by moving the policy to a canonical.com URL? Thanks, Charles <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team" target="_blank"></a> [1] - <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing" target="_blank">http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing</a> [2] - http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/contributors [3] - <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy" target="_blank">http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy</a></div> </div></body></html>