Please, consider reflecting on the Canonical Contributor Agreement

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

With your permission, I'm adding the Ubuntu Quality mailing list as copy 
receiver of this conversation; so it's recorder in 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com/> and 
there would be no need to repeat the same points if someone asks us 
latter on.


Stephen M. Webb:
   > In order to enforce the GPL should it become necessary, it needs to
   > have copyright on the contributed code.

Correct me but, as far as I know, it would only be necessary to express 
written permission to the company to defend you.


Stephen M. Webb:
  > That's what the CLA is.  A lot of people disagree with doing this,
  > but I don't get the impression you're one of them.

I don't know if a CLA is the answer, but I see nothing bad about that 
itself.

Probably other people doesn't too, and they are just expressing their 
concerns through it.


Stephen M. Webb:
   > Remember, Canonical is not Ubuntu.  Contributing to Ubuntu is not at
   > all the same thing as contributing upstream to Canonical.

Well, most of the code and infrastructure that Canonical writes is for 
Ubuntu; and how it is driven impregnates the Ubuntu ecosystem.


Stephen M. Webb:
   > Insisting that Canonical be restricted to publishing only under the
   > GPL, or from trying to earn revenue with its property, is not fair
   > and considering Canonical contributes much software and
   > infrastructure to Ubuntu, self-defeating in the long run.

I know that making business by giving the product for free is 
challenging, and that the priority number one of a company is having 
solvency.

On the other hand, the core advantage of Ubuntu as product is the 
relationship that the GPL enables. What is even greater than the 
advanced decision taking process that Canonical has in place, and makes 
possible Ubuntu to excel over other distributions.

These decisions are what makes Ubuntu shine over other Linuxes, but not 
over Windows and Mac. Over these two the superiority is software 
developed libre and community driven, what attracts smart people to 
contribute the 90% of code and ideas under the security it will remain 
that way.

Even in the case this won't be possible to maintain this core value at 
its maximum extension, being clear about its importance is crucial. 
People know that intuitively, and there's from where all the criticisms 
come really from.

When purpose and values are clear, and people participate in decisions, 
there are never fights.


Compare this with the current situation:

 > As Ubuntu becomes the open-source standard in so many markets, our
 > portfolio continues to flourish.

 > Everything we do reflects our ability to be progressive in thought,
 > innovative in design, adroit in delivery, and disruptive in the
 > markets we target.

 > Ubuntu is born of the cloud — Both the industry standard for Ubuntu
 > Openstack and the world’s leading cloud guest.

 > Being at Canonical allows you to work with an extremely talented team
 > to develop a sector-defining product — it’s very exciting.

 > I love helping enterprises reach their true potential with open
 > source software.

 > Canonical is doing something genuinely ground-breaking.

 > The vision for Ubuntu is part social and part economic: free
 > software, available to everybody on the same terms, and funded
 > through a portfolio of services provided by Canonical.


This is not evil, but just the most common and unnoticed mistake when 
successful: there appear so much technique and interesting options that 
people forget what made the project prosper in the first place.