Developemnt and use - Training manual

[Blaise Alleyne]

Billy Cina wrote:
> George Farris wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 10:38 +0300, Billy Cina wrote:
>>   
>>>> Right, so if we want to use the manual in our Community Education course
>>>> to introduce and teach Ubuntu Linux while charging the student a fee for
>>>> the course, this would be okay?
>>>>
>>>> Note: these are not degree courses they fall into the same category as
>>>> "learn to paint" or "better life through yoga".  Strictly for community
>>>> personal interest with charges usually between $50.00 - $199.00
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>> Non-profit are key words. $50 - $199.00 sounds like profit seeking to me.
>>>
>>> Billy Cina
>>>     
>>
>> Exactly which brings me back to the original question.  
>>
>> It seems a little out of touch with the rest of Ubuntu.  
>>
>> If one can take Hardy Heron and use it to present a course on Linux
>> while charging for the course, why wouldn't you have the license similar
>> for the documents?  Charge for the course (not the material) but use the
>> material to refer to in the course.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>   
> Dear George and Blaise,
>
> Am addressing both in the same email.

Thanks for the response.

> 
> Ubuntu is a free distribution and will always continue to be free.  
> However, this does not mean that every service provided to support 
> Ubuntu or its further expansion must also be free.

Free as in price or freedom? No one expects that every service provided to support Ubuntu will be provided at no cost, but one does expect Canonical to have a more consistent respect for the freedom central to the open source software it provides. Using a non-free license by choice seems inconsistent with Canonical's stated mission of "facilitating the continued growth and development of the free software community" since it's inconsistent with the community's beliefs and restricts its development. [0]

> Both the Ubuntu 
> community  and Canonical have invested a lot of time and money in 
> developing this course,

I don't think anyone takes for granted the effort that's gone into this project, which is why it'd be a shame if the fruits of that labour are only unavailable under a non-free license, limiting their value and usage.

> it is therefor reasonable for: a. the community 
> to be able to use the material (freely) to further spread the work of 
> Ubuntu and grow the user base, 

The important point raised is that the community /isn't/ able to use to the work freely, in the sense of freedom, only in the sense of price. Community members are in a legal grey area, at best, if they want to be compensated for any time and money they spend on training if they make use of these materials because of the non-commercial clause.

> and b. for Canonical to determine who 
> should be seeking a profit out of its investment.

It's reasonable, in the sense that Canonical has the legal right to make such a decision. But Canonical (and the community) would benefit from some consistency in their commitment to free software and free culture. If everyone in the free software world believed it was reasonable "to determine who should be seeking a profit out of [their] investment[s]," Canonical wouldn't have a distribution.


As an employee of a small business currently considering a transition to Ubuntu, it's disconcerting that Canonical believes it ought to control profit-seeking within its community. If this is a conscious choice, it doesn't seem like a great community for a business to enter.


[0] http://www.canonical.com/aboutus