That isn't new and may and/or can not be in the near future :)
Ubuntu still isn't free software
81–90 of 102 posts
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing people who were trying to remind what the whole affair was really about (corruption in journalism) to antisemites. Well, it was hard to beat mjg59, but it seems you've managed to do so. He just censored them, in a childish way.
It was never about "corruption" in journalism, especially not in gaming journalism. If it had been, it would have focused on AAA devs rather than a random indie developer who was a woman. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate...
I don't think Guardian is a trustworthy source on this, having in mind their heavy left bias. They won't present any arguments which could undermine the narration that it was pure anti-women witchhunt, simply because it won't fit their ideological line.
Look, they even managed to somehow connect the 2-years old event to the last month's three most hot keywords of left-leaning media: Trump, alt-right and hate. This shows that this article is a opinion piece targeted to a specific group of readers in order to amplify their existing beliefs, rather than a balanced description of facts.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was never about "corruption" in journalism, especially not in gaming journalism. If it had been, it would have focused on AAA devs rather than a random indie developer who was a woman. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate...
I don't think Guardian is a trustworthy source on this, having in mind their heavy left bias. They won't present any arguments which could undermine the narration that it was pure anti-women witchhunt, simply because it won't fit their ideological line. Look, they even managed to somehow connect the 2-years old event to the last month's three most hot keywords of left-leaning media: Trump, alt-right and hate. This sh…
Please argue from facts rather than accusations of bias. Otherwise you can never get to the heart of the matter: you can always dismiss your interlocutor or some source because of bias, or position, which everyone has because we're human.
If you question the facts of the piece, please do and point out what they are and provide evidence for your position. If you think there are no facts in the piece, point that out, too. If you think it's not the whole picture, that's another great idea: show what's missing. Lots of great opportunities to say something constructive.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#84[deleted]
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#85I fail to see the problem- either don't change the image in a meaningful way or recompile without the name ubuntu and call it something else. Seems ok to me. Also, using the Ubuntu name for a product not made by canonical without permission is against trademark law, so the argument made seems moot. A few restrictions does not automatically make something "not free". In fact copyleft "free software" has tons of restri…
That isn't enough. Mark Shuttleworth had said you cannot simply remove all trademarks, that may not be sufficient. they don't document what needs removing, and thus it's fairly difficult to actually "just" removing trademarks.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#86Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believing that alarmist stance: Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your righ…
This was my conclusion also. TFA says:
> It's legitimate for Canonical to insist that you not pass it off as their work when doing so, but their IP policy continues to insist that you remove all references to Canonical's trademarks even if their use would not infringe trademark law.
Since we're being pedantic about wordings, it doesn't say "remove all references to Canonical's trademarks", it says "remove and replace the Trademarks and [...] create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source license applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu."
I think it's explicit here that where this request to remove their trademarks conflicts with any existing licensing, that licensing will take precedence.
When read in conjunction with https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing which stipulates that any component in the main Ubuntu component "must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under the same licence" it seems pretty clear that any software in the main component, at least, is protected and they're only doing what they're legally required to do to protect their trademarks.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#87Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believing that alarmist stance: Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your righ…
The author does not claim it isn't open source, the author claims it doesn't comply with the four freedoms. > and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. I believe the author specifically calls out this document themselves, and emphasises the phrase above, as being the problematic portion. And while canonical does also say "For further information, please contact us (as set out below)", th…
But if that's the whole argument then it's a gimme from the start, since Ubuntu includes non-free driver blobs and the like. They prioritise utility over "free software purity".
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#88Finding this a little late by HN standards, but this author is full of nonsense.
From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
"Rules about packaging and distribution details
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more."
And yes it says in explaining freedom 2 & 3:
"The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. "
But I argue being required to remove Canonical/Ubuntu legally protected artifacts does not in anyway "effectively hamper" someone from releasing their changes.
But regardless, so what? Calling them out won't change anything. When does that ever work? They've crafted a justification. The only way to get them to change is stop using Ubuntu.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Guardian is a trustworthy source on this, having in mind their heavy left bias. They won't present any arguments which could undermine the narration that it was pure anti-women witchhunt, simply because it won't fit their ideological line. Look, they even managed to somehow connect the 2-years old event to the last month's three most hot keywords of left-leaning media: Trump, alt-right and hate. This sh…
Please argue from facts rather than accusations of bias. Otherwise you can never get to the heart of the matter: you can always dismiss your interlocutor or some source because of bias, or position, which everyone has because we're human. If you question the facts of the piece, please do and point out what they are and provide evidence for your position. If you think there are no facts in the piece, point that out, t…
> show what's missing
Go to the Guardian article, press ctrl+f and type:
- corruption
- review
- buy
Now you see what is missing. I don't say that Gamergate didn't evolved into mostly hate driven movement in its latter phase, but its primary cause must not be ignored.
Nevertheless, I don't want to waste my time on discussing it, since my comment was about mjg59 behavior, not Gamergate (and I didn't followed it enough to discuss it in details).
He was neglecting his maintainers duties, for example he accepted a patch from a well-known troll, which in fact broke some things. So he would have to step down from maintenance anyway. (This is not any secret info, it all can be read on LKML.)
Instead he decided to play drama and presented Gamergate as a reason of stepping down. And replaced all comments who were disproving his statement with "Fart fart fart".
Having in mind all of that, I don't thing calling him 'clown' and describing his actions as childish is an exaggeration.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#90One of the things about releasing source code under various licenses is that it can’t be made purposely difficult to maintain: e.g. you can’t release obfuscated garbage that “technically” compiles into the binary that you released, you must release the code that you actually maintain so any type of modification is feasible.
Why doesn’t that also apply when there are rules about “removing” things? It could be extremely difficult to figure out all the places that specify something, especially if the wording is not absolutely consistent. I would hate to fix 99 of them and still be sued by missing the 100th.
If a project wants to have a rule like this then they should say exactly how to comply. For example, don’t say “you must remove”; say “to replace the trademark, edit script_that_everything_uses_to_set_this”, or “here is the exhaustive list of files to change when replacing the trademark”, or whatever.