If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free software in practice
1–10 of 139 posts
Re: If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free software in practice
#2I agree: Canonical should make it easier for developers to strip the company's trademarks when forking their applications.
Canonical's relationship with the rest of the FOSS community always seemed a bit screwed up to me. They try to make Ubuntu the best Linux distro while ignoring what all the other ones are doing. All other distros seem much more friendly towards integration between projects, to benefit from the shared work, while Ubuntu most of the time paves its own way - there's a lot of Ubuntu only software, such as Unity, Mir, etc. that you just dont see in other distros.
Re: If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free software in practice
#3Ok the real question is, how does this compares to CentOS/"Prominent Linux Vendor" relationship
And Linux Mint also recompiles and replaces the trademarks no?
Re: If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free software in practice
#4I agree: Canonical should make it easier for developers to strip the company's trademarks when forking their applications. Canonical's relationship with the rest of the FOSS community always seemed a bit screwed up to me. They try to make Ubuntu the best Linux distro while ignoring what all the other ones are doing. All other distros seem much more friendly towards integration between projects, to benefit from the sh…
Correct me if I am wrong, but to my understanding, both Unity and Mir are open source, and nothing stops other distros from adopting it.
Re: If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free software in practice
#5I agree: Canonical should make it easier for developers to strip the company's trademarks when forking their applications. Canonical's relationship with the rest of the FOSS community always seemed a bit screwed up to me. They try to make Ubuntu the best Linux distro while ignoring what all the other ones are doing. All other distros seem much more friendly towards integration between projects, to benefit from the sh…
Correct me if I am wrong, but to my understanding, both Unity and Mir are open source, and nothing stops other distros from adopting it.
They are open-source, but they only really work on Ubuntu. Upstart is another example, and it's part of why other Ubuntu-specific things won't work on other distros.
Other distros could try to port Ubuntu projects, but why would Canonical accept their patches upstream?
Re: If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free software in practice
#6Ok the real question is, how does this compares to CentOS/"Prominent Linux Vendor" relationship And Linux Mint also recompiles and replaces the trademarks no?
> And Linux Mint also recompiles and replaces the trademarks no?
Sure, but presumably that took a lot of effort.
Re: If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free software in practice
#7Ok the real question is, how does this compares to CentOS/"Prominent Linux Vendor" relationship And Linux Mint also recompiles and replaces the trademarks no?
Did you read Garrett's post? Prominent Linux Vendor segregates its trademarks into three packages and documents that you need to replace those specific packages (and only those) with versions that don't infringe their trademarks if you wish to redistribute.
Re: If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free software in practice
#8This seems to basically just be a link to http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/38467.html; I think the link should be changed to that.
Re: If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free software in practice
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I am wrong, but to my understanding, both Unity and Mir are open source, and nothing stops other distros from adopting it.
They are open-source, but they only really work on Ubuntu. Upstart is another example, and it's part of why other Ubuntu-specific things won't work on other distros. Other distros could try to port Ubuntu projects, but why would Canonical accept their patches upstream?
I believe ubuntu is going to change from upstart to systemd soon?
Re: If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free software in practice
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are open-source, but they only really work on Ubuntu. Upstart is another example, and it's part of why other Ubuntu-specific things won't work on other distros. Other distros could try to port Ubuntu projects, but why would Canonical accept their patches upstream?
I believe ubuntu is going to change from upstart to systemd soon?
[deleted]