Re: [opensuse-project] Can we support for-profit organizations to make money? (Was: Ubuntu One Music Store)
On 23/02/10 21:56, Henne Vogelsang wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On 02/20/2010 03:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
I'm Jeff Mitchell, one of the Amarok authors. Nice to meet all of you.
Likewise :)
Canonical however is a for-profit company. Other distributions shipping this plugin means that you're helping Canonical make their money for them, and I haven't heard of any method of Canonical sharing profit with other distributions.
Why is this a problem? It isn't, necessarily -- but I do worry about the implications of for-profit distributions or projects or companies getting in a habit of pushing code upstream -- or on other distributions -- with the sole purpose of earning money (as opposed to earning money by improving FOSS and creating a more salable product). It seems like a fairly slippery slope. I'm not sure that Canonical will try to get this in Rhythmbox trunk, but I'm interested in knowing how openSUSE would respond in this case, if openSUSE might voluntarily ship this plugin, and the thoughts of the openSUSE community in general.
Since quite some time we follow a simple approach here and mostly ask two rather practical questions: "Is this legal?" and "Whats in it for our userbase?". If the answer to the first one is "yes" we decide based on the answer to the second one. For instance we provide in our non-oss repository some commercial applications that clearly bring advantages for our users. But we don't provide binary only drivers because they clearly violate the kernels license. These are the decisions we make.
Now what you ask is a morale question: "Can we support for-profit organizations to make a buck?" The answer from us so far, although implicit through our actions explained above, is "Yes we can.".
But this is the first time this question has come up explicitly and i completely understand why you ask it. I think we're at a point in the evolution of the free and open source software world were these questions of morale come up more often because, frankly, money comes into play. And as we all know money tends to bring chaos into the life of society.
I welcome this discussion, and think its a necessary one, but i would like to discuss it uncoupled from this example.
I am not really sure that you can uncouple from this or any other example.
So what is our answer to:
Can we support for-profit organizations to make money?
This question which you just posed was implied, but not spelt out as such, in my response to a post by Zhang Weiwu in opensuse a couple of days ago in the thread, "what networking file system to use for our home office?".
What you are asking above is really an answer to be answered by the Novell management, surely.
Novell provides commercial SUSE package for which it charges, as I understand it, support fees.
On the other hand, we also have openSUSE which is (now) provided free because its users are acting as guinea-pigs to test what will be released as a SUSE package.
Nevertheless, both openSUSE and SUSE, and whatever goes into them, are OSS - which means that they can be used/installed/altered by anyone (with some conditions) - but they may be FREELY copied and distributed.
My question posed to Zhang Weiwu in opensuse was not directly questioning the commercial purpose for his use of a linux distro but was actually asking why someone who claims not to be an IT person fooling around with trying to install a network in a commercial environment (and he had already asked someone for advice on the subject) - but the way I expressed myself was possibly too subtle.
*But *I did also have at the back of mind the question of why should someone doing commercial work ask for help when SUSE has help support - which comes with paying for the SUSE package.
However, this fleeting thought of mine was really not of any consequence - except to ask myself what Novell's management is all about - because there are many people who regularly - daily even - ask questions and comment about problems with openSUSE while they also state they are using openSUSE to install it on the computers of their "clients" as part of their professional services - ie, "making a buck".
From the perspective of the question asked above re Canonical's
Rhythmbox, the software is FOSS, released under the GNU license therefore would not be a need to consider any special "conditions" for its use in any other distribution outside Canonical.
Even considering that there could be some "moral" aspect attached to this question is unthinkable because this would imply that FOSS software is subject to 'deals' between distros for share of - profits was mentioned above - "benefits" of a financial nature which is not what FOSS and GNU are all about. You want to make money from it put a patent on it and do not release it under a GNU license.
*Ask *for a contribution from a user if s/he likes the software - why not?
BC
On 02/23/2010 01:12 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 23/02/10 21:56, Henne Vogelsang wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On 02/20/2010 03:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
I'm Jeff Mitchell, one of the Amarok authors. Nice to meet all of you.
Likewise :)
Canonical however is a for-profit company. Other distributions shipping this plugin means that you're helping Canonical make their money for them, and I haven't heard of any method of Canonical sharing profit with other distributions.
Why is this a problem? It isn't, necessarily -- but I do worry about the implications of for-profit distributions or projects or companies getting in a habit of pushing code upstream -- or on other distributions -- with the sole purpose of earning money (as opposed to earning money by improving FOSS and creating a more salable product). It seems like a fairly slippery slope. I'm not sure that Canonical will try to get this in Rhythmbox trunk, but I'm interested in knowing how openSUSE would respond in this case, if openSUSE might voluntarily ship this plugin, and the thoughts of the openSUSE community in general.
Since quite some time we follow a simple approach here and mostly ask two rather practical questions: "Is this legal?" and "Whats in it for our userbase?". If the answer to the first one is "yes" we decide based on the answer to the second one. For instance we provide in our non-oss repository some commercial applications that clearly bring advantages for our users. But we don't provide binary only drivers because they clearly violate the kernels license. These are the decisions we make.
Now what you ask is a morale question: "Can we support for-profit organizations to make a buck?" The answer from us so far, although implicit through our actions explained above, is "Yes we can.".
But this is the first time this question has come up explicitly and i completely understand why you ask it. I think we're at a point in the evolution of the free and open source software world were these questions of morale come up more often because, frankly, money comes into play. And as we all know money tends to bring chaos into the life of society.
I welcome this discussion, and think its a necessary one, but i would like to discuss it uncoupled from this example.
I am not really sure that you can uncouple from this or any other example.
So what is our answer to:
Can we support for-profit organizations to make money?
[...]
What you are asking above is really an answer to be answered by the Novell management, surely.
Novell provides commercial SUSE package for which it charges, as I understand it, support fees.
On the other hand, we also have openSUSE which is (now) provided free because its users are acting as guinea-pigs to test what will be released as a SUSE package.
I'm sorry but you seem to misunderstand the nature of this project. There is no Novell management that makes our decisions and our reason of existence is not to serve as guinea-pigs for something like a SUSE package. Subsequently your answer to the question (Novell management has to decide) is wrong.
Please inform yourself. I suggest you start by reading our Guiding Principles here: http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles
Even considering that there could be some "moral" aspect attached to this question is unthinkable because this would imply that FOSS software is subject to 'deals' between distros for share of - profits was mentioned above - "benefits" of a financial nature which is not what FOSS and GNU are all about.
This would mean that FOSS is about free as in beer not free as in free speech. I guess that no one that seriously engages oneself in FOSS will agree with you on this.
The question stands unanswered.
Henne
On 23/02/10 23:45, Henne Vogelsang wrote:
On 02/23/2010 01:12 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 23/02/10 21:56, Henne Vogelsang wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On 02/20/2010 03:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
I'm Jeff Mitchell, one of the Amarok authors. Nice to meet all of you.
Likewise :)
Canonical however is a for-profit company. Other distributions shipping this plugin means that you're helping Canonical make their money for them, and I haven't heard of any method of Canonical sharing profit with other distributions.
Why is this a problem? It isn't, necessarily -- but I do worry about the implications of for-profit distributions or projects or companies getting in a habit of pushing code upstream -- or on other distributions -- with the sole purpose of earning money (as opposed to earning money by improving FOSS and creating a more salable product). It seems like a fairly slippery slope. I'm not sure that Canonical will try to get this in Rhythmbox trunk, but I'm interested in knowing how openSUSE would respond in this case, if openSUSE might voluntarily ship this plugin, and the thoughts of the openSUSE community in general.
Since quite some time we follow a simple approach here and mostly ask two rather practical questions: "Is this legal?" and "Whats in it for our userbase?". If the answer to the first one is "yes" we decide based on the answer to the second one. For instance we provide in our non-oss repository some commercial applications that clearly bring advantages for our users. But we don't provide binary only drivers because they clearly violate the kernels license. These are the decisions we make.
Now what you ask is a morale question: "Can we support for-profit organizations to make a buck?" The answer from us so far, although implicit through our actions explained above, is "Yes we can.".
But this is the first time this question has come up explicitly and i completely understand why you ask it. I think we're at a point in the evolution of the free and open source software world were these questions of morale come up more often because, frankly, money comes into play. And as we all know money tends to bring chaos into the life of society.
I welcome this discussion, and think its a necessary one, but i would like to discuss it uncoupled from this example.
I am not really sure that you can uncouple from this or any other example.
So what is our answer to:
Can we support for-profit organizations to make money?
[...]
What you are asking above is really an answer to be answered by the Novell management, surely.
Novell provides commercial SUSE package for which it charges, as I understand it, support fees.
On the other hand, we also have openSUSE which is (now) provided free because its users are acting as guinea-pigs to test what will be released as a SUSE package.
I'm sorry but you seem to misunderstand the nature of this project. There is no Novell management that makes our decisions and our reason of existence is not to serve as guinea-pigs for something like a SUSE package. Subsequently your answer to the question (Novell management has to decide) is wrong.
Please inform yourself. I suggest you start by reading our Guiding Principles here: http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles
Even considering that there could be some "moral" aspect attached to this question is unthinkable because this would imply that FOSS software is subject to 'deals' between distros for share of - profits was mentioned above - "benefits" of a financial nature which is not what FOSS and GNU are all about.
This would mean that FOSS is about free as in beer not free as in free speech.
I don't think that this is what I stated....
I guess that no one that seriously engages oneself in FOSS will agree with you on this.
The question stands unanswered.
Henne
Thank you for your response. I shall read the Guiding Principles very shortly, or tomorrow, and be "heducated".
And I will ask - if I ask - the question which pops into my mind right now as to who actually owns openSUSE after I have read the Guiding Principles.
Kind Regards,
BC
Le mercredi 24 février 2010, à 00:01 +1100, Basil Chupin a écrit :
And I will ask - if I ask - the question which pops into my mind right now as to who actually owns openSUSE after I have read the Guiding Principles.
It's a free software project: it's owned by its contributors. And if we get some openSUSE Foundation later on, this won't change: the Foundation will just handle the legal and financial aspects of the project, but it will still be owned by the contributors.
Vincent
On 24/02/10 00:11, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mercredi 24 février 2010, à 00:01 +1100, Basil Chupin a écrit :
And I will ask - if I ask - the question which pops into my mind right now as to who actually owns openSUSE after I have read the Guiding Principles.
It's a free software project: it's owned by its contributors. And if we get some openSUSE Foundation later on, this won't change: the Foundation will just handle the legal and financial aspects of the project, but it will still be owned by the contributors.
Vincent
Thank you for your response.
I am about to go to bed but had to ask this:
have you read the entries in the wikipedia for "openSUSE" and "openSUSE Project"?
May I respectfully suggest that someone edit the entries in wikipedia to reflect the facts which you just stated that, "but [openSUSE] will still be owned by the contributors." and not by Novell.
(But I have yet to read the Guidelines mentioned by Henne so my response is based on ignorance of what the Guidelines contain. [But people reading the wikipedia entries don't see the Guidelines - do they?].)
Kind regards,
BC
On 23/02/10 10:53, Basil Chupin wrote:
May I respectfully suggest that someone edit the entries in wikipedia to reflect the facts which you just stated that, "but [openSUSE] will still be owned by the contributors." and not by Novell.
Ownership is quite different from a trademark.
Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 14:53:55 schrieb Basil Chupin:
On 24/02/10 00:11, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mercredi 24 février 2010, à 00:01 +1100, Basil Chupin a écrit :
And I will ask - if I ask - the question which pops into my mind right now as to who actually owns openSUSE after I have read the Guiding Principles.
It's a free software project: it's owned by its contributors. And if we get some openSUSE Foundation later on, this won't change: the Foundation will just handle the legal and financial aspects of the project, but it will still be owned by the contributors.
Vincent
Thank you for your response.
I am about to go to bed but had to ask this:
have you read the entries in the wikipedia for "openSUSE" and "openSUSE Project"?
I just did.
May I respectfully suggest that someone edit the entries in wikipedia to reflect the facts which you just stated that, "but [openSUSE] will still be owned by the contributors." and not by Novell.
What part of both articles are you refering to? I only see Novell mentioned as sponsor, which is just stating the fact that Novell contributes a large chunk to openSUSE development. There isn't even a word about "ownership" or similar, beeing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software already is enough to point out who runs the project, ownership isn't an appropriate term.
(But I have yet to read the Guidelines mentioned by Henne so my response is based on ignorance of what the Guidelines contain. [But people reading the wikipedia entries don't see the Guidelines - do they?].)
Wikipedia beeing an encyclopedia of course only gives an overview of openSUSE, the guidelines are for people who want to identify and contribute so they know what openSUSE strives for.
Karsten
On 24/02/10 01:33, Karsten König wrote:
Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 14:53:55 schrieb Basil Chupin:
On 24/02/10 00:11, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mercredi 24 février 2010, à 00:01 +1100, Basil Chupin a écrit :
And I will ask - if I ask - the question which pops into my mind right now as to who actually owns openSUSE after I have read the Guiding Principles.
It's a free software project: it's owned by its contributors. And if we get some openSUSE Foundation later on, this won't change: the Foundation will just handle the legal and financial aspects of the project, but it will still be owned by the contributors.
Vincent
Thank you for your response.
I am about to go to bed but had to ask this:
have you read the entries in the wikipedia for "openSUSE" and "openSUSE Project"?
I just did.
May I respectfully suggest that someone edit the entries in wikipedia to reflect the facts which you just stated that, "but [openSUSE] will still be owned by the contributors." and not by Novell.
What part of both articles are you refering to? I only see Novell mentioned as sponsor, which is just stating the fact that Novell contributes a large chunk to openSUSE development. There isn't even a word about "ownership" or similar, beeing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software already is enough to point out who runs the project, ownership isn't an appropriate term.
From the Guidelines referred to me by Henne Vogelsang, namely
http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles
I quote the following:
QUOTE
Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark.
UNQUOTE
(But I have yet to read the Guidelines mentioned by Henne so my response is based on ignorance of what the Guidelines contain. [But people reading the wikipedia entries don't see the Guidelines - do they?].)
Wikipedia beeing an encyclopedia of course only gives an overview of openSUSE, the guidelines are for people who want to identify and contribute so they know what openSUSE strives for.
Good to read this. So, have you read the Guidelines? Just asking.
Karsten
BC
Am Sonntag, 28. Februar 2010 14:03:22 schrieb Basil Chupin:
From the Guidelines referred to me by Henne Vogelsang, namely
http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles
I quote the following:
QUOTE
Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark.
UNQUOTE
Huh? I know Novell owns the trademark but also allows it's use for certain parts of the community, I think there is a mailing list where you can ask if it's ok to use the trademark for example your own openSUSE spin. Still I don't get what this has to do with novell owning openSUSE, a trademark is something different. It's similar to the name Linux which also is a trademark but can basicly be used free of charge unless it is with bad intent.
(But I have yet to read the Guidelines mentioned by Henne so my response is based on ignorance of what the Guidelines contain. [But people reading the wikipedia entries don't see the Guidelines - do they?].)
Wikipedia beeing an encyclopedia of course only gives an overview of openSUSE, the guidelines are for people who want to identify and contribute so they know what openSUSE strives for.
Good to read this. So, have you read the Guidelines? Just asking.
Yes I did and I don't particularly like them as they are very unspecific about real goals and read like something propably every distribution aims for. Still I don't get what this has to do with the wikipedia entry, it is correct on the matters of ownership as openSUSE is a free software project, which boils down to ownership is spread over it's users and developers.
Karsten
On 01/03/10 00:24, Karsten König wrote:
Am Sonntag, 28. Februar 2010 14:03:22 schrieb Basil Chupin:
From the Guidelines referred to me by Henne Vogelsang, namely
http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles
I quote the following:
QUOTE
Novell owns the registered openSUSE trademark.
UNQUOTE
Huh? I know Novell owns the trademark but also allows it's use for certain parts of the community, I think there is a mailing list where you can ask if it's ok to use the trademark for example your own openSUSE spin. Still I don't get what this has to do with novell owning openSUSE, a trademark is something different. It's similar to the name Linux which also is a trademark but can basicly be used free of charge unless it is with bad intent.
Have a look at the entry for Novell, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell
Look in the R-H panel which will show that openSUSE is a product of Novell.
However, I would be most pleased to be advised of a reference which shows that openSUSE.org is in fact an 'org' which is a not-for-profit organisation and which is a legal entity, able to sue and be sued, and which is constituted under an Act of parliament (in my country) and which has to meet very specific requirements as specified in the Act to be termed an 'organisation'.
In which country is openSUSE registered as a not-for-profit organisation?
However, I can see in the entry for the domain names for .org that this domain name is usually used for open source software - with no qualification mentioned that a commercial entity cannot use this domain name for its product(s).
In the Guidelines which Henne mentioned there is one word called "board". If you click on that word you will taken to an explanation of what "board" is all about.
Quite apart from the fact that all board members - except, perhaps, one - are employees of Novell, there is also the statement that the chairperson of the "board" is always appointed by Novell.
BC
Hi,
On 03/01/2010 08:43 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
However, I would be most pleased to be advised of a reference which shows that openSUSE.org is in fact an 'org' which is a not-for-profit organisation and which is a legal entity, able to sue and be sued, and which is constituted under an Act of parliament (in my country) and which has to meet very specific requirements as specified in the Act to be termed an 'organisation'.
In which country is openSUSE registered as a not-for-profit organisation?
AFAIK work on this is on its way. The board is evaluating the options.
Quite apart from the fact that all board members - except, perhaps, one
- are employees of Novell, there is also the statement that the
chairperson of the "board" is always appointed by Novell.
The current board http://en.opensuse.org/Board has three Novell employees and three non-Novell members. Not sure where you got other information.
Wolfgang
On 01/03/10 18:53, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
Hi,
On 03/01/2010 08:43 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
However, I would be most pleased to be advised of a reference which shows that openSUSE.org is in fact an 'org' which is a not-for-profit organisation and which is a legal entity, able to sue and be sued, and which is constituted under an Act of parliament (in my country) and which has to meet very specific requirements as specified in the Act to be termed an 'organisation'.
In which country is openSUSE registered as a not-for-profit organisation?
AFAIK work on this is on its way. The board is evaluating the options.
"Work on this is on its way"? Surely all this would have been done years ago?
Are you suggesting that the opensuse.org thing....falls short of legal requirements (in any country) to be termed a not-for-profit organisation (ie, .org)?
In any case, what is the legal basis (in whatever country) for having this "board"?
The bottom line is: if someone were to sue openSUSE for whatever reason, who would they be suing in a court of law? Novell or some nebulus entity called "the board" created by.....[aha, the "community", right!]?
Quite apart from the fact that all board members - except, perhaps, one
- are employees of Novell, there is also the statement that the
chairperson of the "board" is always appointed by Novell.
The current board http://en.opensuse.org/Board has three Novell employees and three non-Novell members. Not sure where you got other information.
From what Henne provided in his response-
http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles
which contains the link to-
BC
On 03/01/2010 09:16 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
In which country is openSUSE registered as a not-for-profit organisation?
AFAIK work on this is on its way. The board is evaluating the options.
"Work on this is on its way"? Surely all this would have been done years ago? Are you suggesting that the opensuse.org thing....falls short of legal requirements (in any country) to be termed a not-for-profit organisation (ie, .org)?
Probably? I cannot answer legal questions but not everything needs to be an official organisation, does it?
In any case, what is the legal basis (in whatever country) for having this "board"?
The bottom line is: if someone were to sue openSUSE for whatever reason, who would they be suing in a court of law? Novell or some nebulus entity called "the board" created by.....[aha, the "community", right!]?
I don't see opensuse.org as an institution which can be sued right now because it's lacking a legal status but again IANAL.
Quite apart from the fact that all board members - except, perhaps, one
- are employees of Novell, there is also the statement that the
chairperson of the "board" is always appointed by Novell.
The current board http://en.opensuse.org/Board has three Novell employees and three non-Novell members. Not sure where you got other information.
From what Henne provided in his response-
http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles
which contains the link to-
As this is the same site I got the other information from I'm wondering what you were looking at because what you say is simply wrong.
Wolfgang
Basil,
Le lundi 01 mars 2010, à 19:16 +1100, Basil Chupin a écrit :
On 01/03/10 18:53, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
On 03/01/2010 08:43 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
In which country is openSUSE registered as a not-for-profit organisation?
AFAIK work on this is on its way. The board is evaluating the options.
"Work on this is on its way"? Surely all this would have been done years ago?
Are you suggesting that the opensuse.org thing....falls short of legal requirements (in any country) to be termed a not-for-profit organisation (ie, .org)?
In any case, what is the legal basis (in whatever country) for having this "board"?
The bottom line is: if someone were to sue openSUSE for whatever reason, who would they be suing in a court of law? Novell or some nebulus entity called "the board" created by.....[aha, the "community", right!]?
I'm trying to understand what is the issue you're trying to discuss here. This is what I got (those are not real quotes, but I'm putting quote marks to show that it's not my opinion):
1) "the decision to support for-profit organizations by allowing them to make money on openSUSE is a decision that should be taken by Novell"
2) "the project is owned by Novell because it owns the trademark"
3) "the project is owned by Novell because Novell could be sued for something happening in openSUSE"
4) "the project is not owned by the community because there's no non-profit organization behind the project"
Which one(s) is/are the topic(s) you're discussing?
Vincent
On 01/03/10 20:40, Vincent Untz wrote:
Basil,
Le lundi 01 mars 2010, à 19:16 +1100, Basil Chupin a écrit :
On 01/03/10 18:53, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
On 03/01/2010 08:43 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
In which country is openSUSE registered as a not-for-profit organisation?
AFAIK work on this is on its way. The board is evaluating the options.
"Work on this is on its way"? Surely all this would have been done years ago?
Are you suggesting that the opensuse.org thing....falls short of legal requirements (in any country) to be termed a not-for-profit organisation (ie, .org)?
In any case, what is the legal basis (in whatever country) for having this "board"?
The bottom line is: if someone were to sue openSUSE for whatever reason, who would they be suing in a court of law? Novell or some nebulus entity called "the board" created by.....[aha, the "community", right!]?
I'm trying to understand what is the issue you're trying to discuss here. This is what I got (those are not real quotes, but I'm putting quote marks to show that it's not my opinion):
"the decision to support for-profit organizations by allowing them to make money on openSUSE is a decision that should be taken by Novell"
"the project is owned by Novell because it owns the trademark"
"the project is owned by Novell because Novell could be sued for something happening in openSUSE"
"the project is not owned by the community because there's no non-profit organization behind the project"
Which one(s) is/are the topic(s) you're discussing?
Vincent
All of them.
But I am not 'discussing' them. I am only asking questions. To which I would have expected answers to have been asked and arrived at long ago by members of "the board", for example.
The last time I tried to install (unsuccessfully) the Milestone 1 version of openSUSE 11.3 KDE Live I was asked the question of whether I accepted the (?)Conditions of Use Licence.
This is not the first time this has been asked (in earlier versions of oS). This indicates to me that the Novell legal department is very much involved in the openSUSE distribution - or that people putting openSUSE are falling down in their job and putting in legal conditions into openSUSE which do not belong there. Which is it? No matter.
I am not trying to blame anyone but I am trying to find out as to who actually MANAGES openSUSE, who CONTROLS it, WHO is the person who says, "The buck stops with ME"? WHO? I asked these questions in another thread (I think) but got the usual gooblydook about "community" yaba-yaba-yaba :-( .
(Why do I ask these questions, you ask, and continue to ask?
Because nobody has given me - no anyone else - a clear answer.
Why hasn't a clear answer been given?
Because I don't think anybody has the clear answer - except for the management of Novell and its legal advisers.)
Just as a matter of curiosity, a person from Canonical asked a question - which is what started this thread - and how is his question being resolved and by whom? I have seen the responses to the OP but are the responses "official"? At least one of the responses appeared to indicate that 'the matter needed a decision by someone higher up the chain' or at least this is what I read into it.
BC
On 03/01/2010 05:29 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
Just as a matter of curiosity, a person from Canonical asked a question
- which is what started this thread
I'm not from Canonical.
--Jeff
On 01/03/10 22:51, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
On 03/01/2010 05:29 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
Just as a matter of curiosity, a person from Canonical asked a question
- which is what started this thread
I'm not from Canonical.
--Jeff
Umm, eh, sorry if I misunderstood what Henne quoted what now appears to have been from a private e-mail between you two which was:
QUOTE
Hi Jeff,
On 02/20/2010 03:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
I'm Jeff Mitchell, one of the Amarok authors. Nice to meet all of you.
Likewise :)
Canonical however is a for-profit company. Other distributions shipping this plugin means that you're helping Canonical make their money for them, and I haven't heard of any method of Canonical sharing profit with other distributions.
UNQUOTE
My sincere apologies, Jeff, for jumping to 'occlusions' :-) .
BC
On 03/01/2010 07:07 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 01/03/10 22:51, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
On 03/01/2010 05:29 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
Just as a matter of curiosity, a person from Canonical asked a question
- which is what started this thread
I'm not from Canonical.
--Jeff
Umm, eh, sorry if I misunderstood what Henne quoted what now appears to have been from a private e-mail between you two which was:
QUOTE
Hi Jeff,
On 02/20/2010 03:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
I'm Jeff Mitchell, one of the Amarok authors. Nice to meet all of you.
Likewise :)
Canonical however is a for-profit company. Other distributions shipping this plugin means that you're helping Canonical make their money for them, and I haven't heard of any method of Canonical sharing profit with other distributions.
UNQUOTE
My sincere apologies, Jeff, for jumping to 'occlusions' :-) .
What on earth are you talking about? That email you're referencing was on opensuse-project list. Henne and I have never communicated in private.
--Jeff
On 01/03/10 23:37, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
On 03/01/2010 07:07 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 01/03/10 22:51, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
On 03/01/2010 05:29 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
Just as a matter of curiosity, a person from Canonical asked a question
- which is what started this thread
I'm not from Canonical.
--Jeff
Umm, eh, sorry if I misunderstood what Henne quoted what now appears to have been from a private e-mail between you two which was:
QUOTE
Hi Jeff,
On 02/20/2010 03:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
I'm Jeff Mitchell, one of the Amarok authors. Nice to meet all of you.
Likewise :)
Canonical however is a for-profit company. Other distributions shipping this plugin means that you're helping Canonical make their money for them, and I haven't heard of any method of Canonical sharing profit with other distributions.
UNQUOTE
My sincere apologies, Jeff, for jumping to 'occlusions' :-) .
What on earth are you talking about? That email you're referencing was on opensuse-project list. Henne and I have never communicated in private.
--Jeff
Quite simple.
The beginning of the message from Henne to this mail list which I quoted had the Subject heading of, "[opensuse-project] Can we support for-profit organizations to make money? (Was: Ubuntu One Music Store)".
There is no "Re:" in the Subject heading.
For all practical purposes Henne is responding to a thread "Can we support for-profit organizations."
But then there is that "(Was: Ubuntu.....").
I am not interested in "One Music Store" so did not read the messages in that thread.
If someone wants to continue an aspect of a subject under a different subject heading then they should state quite clearly what is now being discussed under the new thread by clearly stating the origins on which the new topic is based and not simply come in the middle of a topic by stating,
QUOTE
"Hi Jeff,
On 02/20/2010 03:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
I'm Jeff Mitchell, one of the Amarok authors. Nice to meet all of you.
Likewise :)
Canonical however is a for-profit company. Other distributions shipping this plugin means that you're helping Canonical make their money for them, and I haven't heard of any method of Canonical sharing profit with other distributions."
UNQUOTE
OK, so people make mistakes.
Inadvertently I made a mistake (sort of) for not delving into the (dark) depths of what who said what to whom.
For this slackness on my part for not paying closer attention to what was being posted by people in this forum I can only blame myself, and as a result I tender my apology to you regarding this matter :-) .
BC
On 3/1/2010 9:06 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
The beginning of the message from Henne to this mail list which I quoted had the Subject heading of, "[opensuse-project] Can we support for-profit organizations to make money? (Was: Ubuntu One Music Store)".
There is no "Re:" in the Subject heading.
For all practical purposes Henne is responding to a thread "Can we support for-profit organizations."
But then there is that "(Was: Ubuntu.....").
I am not interested in "One Music Store" so did not read the messages in that thread.
So you made an assumption, which seems to be your M.O. From this thread it seems like if you stopped making assumptions and invested a small amount of time in thinking things through and/or fact checking, you would be able to stop explaining yourself/apologizing/grasping at straws/making people confused quite as much.
--Jeff
On Monday 01 March 2010 11:29:27 Basil Chupin wrote:
All of them.
But I am not 'discussing' them. I am only asking questions. To which I would have expected answers to have been asked and arrived at long ago by members of "the board", for example.
The last time I tried to install (unsuccessfully) the Milestone 1 version of openSUSE 11.3 KDE Live I was asked the question of whether I accepted the (?)Conditions of Use Licence.
If you use the graphical YaST, it shows you the message but does not ask for acceptance just gives it to you as a FYI. Read http://en.opensuse.org/OpenSUSE_License - and check blog postings about how it's done.
This is not the first time this has been asked (in earlier versions of oS). This indicates to me that the Novell legal department is very much involved in the openSUSE distribution - or that people putting openSUSE are falling down in their job and putting in legal conditions into openSUSE which do not belong there. Which is it? No matter.
Please read and understand the License before making the above claims.
I am not trying to blame anyone but I am trying to find out as to who actually MANAGES openSUSE, who CONTROLS it, WHO is the person who says, "The buck stops with ME"? WHO? I asked these questions in another thread (I think) but got the usual gooblydook about "community" yaba-yaba-yaba
:-( .
Let me ask first back with another question: Who manages the internet?
The openSUSE project has Novell employees working on it - and those have a manager etc. But the project itself consists of various teams and each team decides on their own what they do and how they come to decisions. So, you could perhaps call Sascha the manager of the openSUSE Weekly News but their's nobody controlling him besides his team members, the community and the board.
(Why do I ask these questions, you ask, and continue to ask?
Because nobody has given me - no anyone else - a clear answer.
Why hasn't a clear answer been given?
Because I don't think anybody has the clear answer - except for the management of Novell and its legal advisers.)
Just as a matter of curiosity, a person from Canonical asked a question
The person starting the thread was not from Canonical.
- which is what started this thread - and how is his question being
resolved and by whom? I have seen the responses to the OP but are the responses "official"? At least one of the responses appeared to indicate that 'the matter needed a decision by someone higher up the chain' or at least this is what I read into it.
Looking at the thread, I think it's important to understand the issues and then decide together what to do - and if that's consensus, why would a higher authority need to "approve" this?
Andreas
Basil,
Basil Chupin blchupin@iinet.net.au writes:
Have a look at the entry for Novell, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell
Look in the R-H panel which will show that openSUSE is a product of Novell.
thx for the pointers.
I've tried to rectify things a bit, both in the infobox and in the Novell Linux history.
The transition from a product produced in a closed in-house inner circle to a free open source project *is* a major change for both the company and the project.
while internally, this change is very tangible, it really needs ongoing clarification in the outside world, and your 'obnoxious' asking points to that.
I count that as contribution ;)
However, I would be most pleased to be advised of a reference which shows that openSUSE.org is in fact an 'org' which is a not-for-profit organisation and which is a legal entity, able to sue and be sued, and which is constituted under an Act of parliament (in my country) and which has to meet very specific requirements as specified in the Act to be termed an 'organisation'.
Bear my ignorance, what difference does that make? I mean, real, factual, nuts and bolts tangible difference in contributing to the openSUSE project or downloading the software? in becoming a board member or technically influential or even key contributor? in taking the openSUSE distribution, givoing it an own flavour, creating services on top of that running an own build server, and giving and getting with the underlying openSUSE community project?
What would you need such an organisation for, except for tax reasons?
In which country is openSUSE registered as a not-for-profit organisation?
However, I can see in the entry for the domain names for .org that this domain name is usually used for open source software - with no qualification mentioned that a commercial entity cannot use this domain name for its product(s).
Btw this reflects the fact that being open source (in OSI terms) is considered enough protection for a project.
S.
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Basil Chupin -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Henne Vogelsang -
Jeff Mitchell -
Karsten König -
Susanne Oberhauser -
Vincent Untz -
Wolfgang Rosenauer