Canonical fleeces the gnome foundation?

[Adrian Petrescu]

I'm more curious about the pragmatic aspects here -- in what sense are the
Banshee maintainers able to "disable" the Amazon store "by default"? If
Canonical is the one packaging and shipping it, and Banshee is open source
software, can't they just re-enable it on the version in Launchpad that they
put in the Ubuntu repositories? What recourse could the Banshee developers
possibly have?

There's probably some subtle point of the relevant open source licenses at
work here, I'm curious to know what they are :)

-Adrian

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Evan Huus <eapache at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Patrick Goetz <pgoetz at mail.utexas.edu>
> wrote:
> > I found this article to be extremely disturbing.  Surely the negative PR
> of
> > such a move isn't worth $10000/yr in revenue?  Who's making these
> > brain-damaged decisions?
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.networkworld.com/community/banshee-amazon-store-disabled-by-canonical-in-ubuntu
> >
>
> I too would be interested in hearing the rationale behind this decision.
>
> Most of the article seems needlessly inflammatory, but the telling
> part of the article was:
>
> > But ask yourself whether this would seem
> > Kosher if Microsoft or Apple [did the same thing].
>
> I can't think of a reason why this kind of thing should be acceptable
> for Canonical when it would clearly cause an uproar for Microsoft or
> Apple to do something similar.
>
> Just my two cents,
> Evan
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20110216/2359eaa5/attachment.html>