Hello,
I'm Jeff Mitchell, one of the Amarok authors. Nice to meet all of you.
As you may know, Amarok has supported multiple music stores for some time. We have had one explicit music store -- Magnatune -- and the framework for more. We've been in talks with some other independent stores and so far no other store plugins have been created, but generally only for lack of investment by these stores (many of them tend to go out of business before they really get off the ground...such is the industry). Amarok gets a small cut of sales to Magnatune, which are reinvested in the project -- which is a non-profit entity incorporated under the SFC.
I posed a question to Will Stephenson during Camp KDE, and I'd like to bring it up here today, in light of the Ubuntu One Music Store plugin finally being pushed in Rhythmbox (see http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Nzk5Ng ). The concept had been public before, but not much information has been available.
Currently, the implementation is a plugin to Rhythmbox. It's unknown if they're going to try to push it into Rhythmbox trunk. Certainly there is a precedent for them to try: after all, we have the Magnatune music store, which as far as I know is included on all distributions of Amarok.
There is of course a very large difference between the two -- the cut of track sales that Magnatune gives to Amarok goes to a non-profit entity and is used to fund developer sprints, pay our hosting costs and the like. As a result of this, no distribution seems to have a problem shipping the Magnatune code. 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.
Thanks, Jeff
On 02/19/2010 09:12 PM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
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
I should mention that I know this for-profit-entity-pushing-code-upstream happens all the time -- for instance pushing drivers into the Linux kernel. And there are other examples too -- RedHat pushing *Kit for instance. But the goal with these examples is to attempt to push newer and better technologies (others might disagree as to whether technology X is better or not, but that's not really the point) into the FOSS world...with the aim also of also profiting, either through sales of now-supported devices or from having a distribution that better supports modern features and provides smoother experiences for the users.
I feel like something is fundamentally different here, because the music store provides no benefit for the wider FOSS community, nor even for a particular non-profit project. One can already download Amazon MP3 music on Linux; this just makes it nominally easier, and mostly ensures that the for-profit Canonical gets a cut of the profits. It's hard to see this as enhancing the FOSS world, or what it brings to the table for other projects and distributions. That's why I'm sending this mail to you, wondering what your take on this is. I'm interested in the insights here.
Thanks, Jeff
Heya,
I won't comment as not to indicate any position not really opensuse correlated =) I think the proper group deciding over this is the opensuse-board (they have their own list but here it gets wider attention) as there might be similar pushes in the future.
Still it might help providing information about this Ubuntu One Music Store, I found https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Specs/LucidUbuntuOneMusicStore and https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/lucid-ubuntu-one-musicstore but they stay very vague what store actually is behind it and how their revenues are used, where the music is comming from etc., it's more about the technical implementation.
Karsten
Am Samstag, 20. Februar 2010 03:32:28 schrieb Jeff Mitchell:
On 02/19/2010 09:12 PM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
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
I should mention that I know this for-profit-entity-pushing-code-upstream happens all the time -- for instance pushing drivers into the Linux kernel. And there are other examples too -- RedHat pushing *Kit for instance. But the goal with these examples is to attempt to push newer and better technologies (others might disagree as to whether technology X is better or not, but that's not really the point) into the FOSS world...with the aim also of also profiting, either through sales of now-supported devices or from having a distribution that better supports modern features and provides smoother experiences for the users.
I feel like something is fundamentally different here, because the music store provides no benefit for the wider FOSS community, nor even for a particular non-profit project. One can already download Amazon MP3 music on Linux; this just makes it nominally easier, and mostly ensures that the for-profit Canonical gets a cut of the profits. It's hard to see this as enhancing the FOSS world, or what it brings to the table for other projects and distributions. That's why I'm sending this mail to you, wondering what your take on this is. I'm interested in the insights here.
Thanks, Jeff
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 10:33 +0100, Karsten König wrote:
Heya,
I won't comment as not to indicate any position not really opensuse correlated =) I think the proper group deciding over this is the opensuse-board (they have their own list but here it gets wider attention) as there might be similar pushes in the future.
Actually, we don't have a list per se in the sense that you may be referring to. This Project mailing list is the proper place to submit such thoughts, considerations, questions, etc. as we're an open community and rely on the fruits of discussion from that community.
The board does have an email address (board at opensuse.org), but it isn't exactly meant as a way to subscribe to and view comments on a mailing list. Rather it is simply a way to send a message privately to the board and everyone on the board receives a copy and may respond, depending on the content.
What I would suggest as more appropriate, if you want the Board to respond to and investigate more, attend one of our bi-weekly meetings and bring up the question during our Q & A session. Our next meeting will be held this coming Wednesday in the #opensuse-project channel at 19:00 UTC. All our meetings are open and we welcome everyone to attend.
But generally, at this stage, I think this is more of an open discussion that should involve as much of the community as possible and let the community voice its support or concerns on the matter.
Thanks, Bryen Yunashko openSUSE Board Member
Still it might help providing information about this Ubuntu One Music Store, I found https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Specs/LucidUbuntuOneMusicStore and https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/lucid-ubuntu-one-musicstore but they stay very vague what store actually is behind it and how their revenues are used, where the music is comming from etc., it's more about the technical implementation.
Karsten
On 2/20/2010 4:52 AM, Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:
What I would suggest as more appropriate, if you want the Board to respond to and investigate more, attend one of our bi-weekly meetings and bring up the question during our Q & A session. Our next meeting will be held this coming Wednesday in the #opensuse-project channel at 19:00 UTC. All our meetings are open and we welcome everyone to attend.
I'll attempt to be there (middle of the workday). Thanks for the input.
--Jeff
On 2/20/2010 4:33 AM, Karsten König wrote:
Heya,
I won't comment as not to indicate any position not really opensuse correlated =) I think the proper group deciding over this is the opensuse-board (they have their own list but here it gets wider attention) as there might be similar pushes in the future.
Still it might help providing information about this Ubuntu One Music Store, I found https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Specs/LucidUbuntuOneMusicStore and https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/lucid-ubuntu-one-musicstore but they stay very vague what store actually is behind it and how their revenues are used, where the music is comming from etc., it's more about the technical implementation.
You've noticed that it's vague? :-)
I don't have any more information to provide than what I already provided, exactly for this reason.
--Jeff
On Friday 19 February 2010 20:32:28 Jeff Mitchell wrote:
I feel like something is fundamentally different here, because the music store provides no benefit for the wider FOSS community, nor even for a particular non-profit project.
They can if it is setup properly, but wider FOSS community has not central point that will collect and distribute such income to all projects involved.
You mentioned Amarok, but it could be any other project at any level of software stack that provides some useful service to end user.
The income that is now used to finance single software project that has members with some business spirit, could be used to help the whole software stack, but to have that one would have to create some non-profit equivalent of company that will take care of contracts and money flow. The rules how to distribute money and how much of income will be spent on operational costs is another pair of shoes.
On 2/20/2010 9:39 AM, Rajko M. wrote:
On Friday 19 February 2010 20:32:28 Jeff Mitchell wrote:
I feel like something is fundamentally different here, because the music store provides no benefit for the wider FOSS community, nor even for a particular non-profit project.
They can if it is setup properly, but wider FOSS community has not central point that will collect and distribute such income to all projects involved.
You mentioned Amarok, but it could be any other project at any level of software stack that provides some useful service to end user.
The income that is now used to finance single software project that has members with some business spirit, could be used to help the whole software stack, but to have that one would have to create some non-profit equivalent of company that will take care of contracts and money flow. The rules how to distribute money and how much of income will be spent on operational costs is another pair of shoes.
Right. I agree with what you say above. But since Canonical is a for-profit company, the music store details are (seemingly intentionally) vague, and there are no known profit-sharing mechanisms being formed, then I don't see things heading that way anytime soon.
--Jeff
Lørdag den 20. februar 2010 03:12:30 skrev Jeff Mitchell:
As you may know, Amarok has supported multiple music stores for some time. We have had one explicit music store -- Magnatune -- and the framework for more. We've been in talks with some other independent stores and so far no other store plugins have been created, but generally only for lack of investment by these stores (many of them tend to go out of business before they really get off the ground...such is the industry). Amarok gets a small cut of sales to Magnatune, which are reinvested in the project -- which is a non-profit entity incorporated under the SFC.
I posed a question to Will Stephenson during Camp KDE, and I'd like to bring it up here today, in light of the Ubuntu One Music Store plugin finally being pushed in Rhythmbox (see http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Nzk5Ng ). The concept had been public before, but not much information has been available.
I don't think you mentioned if Amarok have a policy for such a thing - would you guys ever integrate it into "mainline" Amarok? .. of course an opt-in 3rd party script is a different matter.
openSUSE doesn't have mp3 support (fluendo+gstreamer) out of the box anymore does it? That would be one major problem - since I assume the Ubuntu store wouldn't sell OGG Vorbis or Flac - or perhaps even wav?
It would also be a bit problematic to promote and support a competitor of openSUSE.
So I'd say Ubuntu music store should be a no-go - unless it provides a significant advantage over other options that I'm not aware of.
But generally speaking I wouldn't mind it if openSUSE shipped integration with a for-profit, non free software/free culture related music store - as long as it offered music in formats supported by openSUSE out of the box, without DRM and doesn't belong to a competitor of openSUSE.
I'm speaking as a plain community member btw.
On 2/20/2010 9:46 AM, Martin Schlander wrote:
I don't think you mentioned if Amarok have a policy for such a thing - would you guys ever integrate it into "mainline" Amarok? .. of course an opt-in 3rd party script is a different matter.
It could be, if the API is open, which I would imagine it is (somewhat) as the source code is open. But there's no reason for us to do it if all that happens is it makes Canonical money, and that Amarok gets no benefit from it. Canonical could pay someone to do some bespoke development to get it in Amarok (they won't), at which point we may or may not accept it upstream.
So far our policy for music stores has been pretty strict: they must allow full-length previews, they must allow tracks that have been purchased to be redownloaded at any time, and they must allow tracks to be purchased in a free format (which could be in addition to a non-free format). If there is money to be made by changing some of these policies (like nearly every open source project we could always use more money) then maybe there's reason to consider revising it -- but without some profit-sharing from the UOMS there's not much reason for us to do so.
Revising this policy may get some anger from those music stores that have taken a chance on free software and free formats and have either been integrated or want to be integrated into some of these players. And I wouldn't blame them. So even with profit-sharing, it may be a no-go.
(This doesn't mean it couldn't be provided as a plugin, instead of living in our source tree.)
openSUSE doesn't have mp3 support (fluendo+gstreamer) out of the box anymore does it? That would be one major problem - since I assume the Ubuntu store wouldn't sell OGG Vorbis or Flac - or perhaps even wav?
As far as anybody currently knows/guesses, the UOMS is really just a front for Amazon's MP3 store, and will carry MP3s. Maybe this will change or is wrong, but remarks Canonical has made in the past suggest it. Amazon also has their (DRMed) video-on-demand service and there's no reason to think that Canonical wouldn't want a piece of that pie too.
Remember that Ubuntu is by far the most popular "switch" distro for people switching to Linux from Windows. Many of those people may not really care about open formats or even open source, as opposed to a platform where they aren't infected with viruses every three days. That may be Canonical's real target.
It would also be a bit problematic to promote and support a competitor of openSUSE.
So I'd say Ubuntu music store should be a no-go - unless it provides a significant advantage over other options that I'm not aware of.
But generally speaking I wouldn't mind it if openSUSE shipped integration with a for-profit, non free software/free culture related music store - as long as it offered music in formats supported by openSUSE out of the box, without DRM and doesn't belong to a competitor of openSUSE.
Check out the Magnatune stores in Amarok and Rhythmbox :-)
--Jeff
Hmm, I wonder why so few make their opinions heard here, especially from the more prominent community members?
Am Samstag, 20. Februar 2010 17:35:49 schrieb Jeff Mitchell:
On 2/20/2010 9:46 AM, Martin Schlander wrote:
I don't think you mentioned if Amarok have a policy for such a thing - would you guys ever integrate it into "mainline" Amarok? .. of course an opt-in 3rd party script is a different matter.
It could be, if the API is open, which I would imagine it is (somewhat) as the source code is open. But there's no reason for us to do it if all that happens is it makes Canonical money, and that Amarok gets no benefit from it. Canonical could pay someone to do some bespoke development to get it in Amarok (they won't), at which point we may or may not accept it upstream.
So far our policy for music stores has been pretty strict: they must allow full-length previews, they must allow tracks that have been purchased to be redownloaded at any time, and they must allow tracks to be purchased in a free format (which could be in addition to a non-free format). If there is money to be made by changing some of these policies (like nearly every open source project we could always use more money) then maybe there's reason to consider revising it -- but without some profit-sharing from the UOMS there's not much reason for us to do so.
Revising this policy may get some anger from those music stores that have taken a chance on free software and free formats and have either been integrated or want to be integrated into some of these players. And I wouldn't blame them. So even with profit-sharing, it may be a no-go.
(This doesn't mean it couldn't be provided as a plugin, instead of living in our source tree.)
Aren't most plugins meant to be shared over the gethotnewstuff framework anyway? Do they have policies about what they include and what not? So if you make GHNS an integral part of plugin distribution how do you handle that?
openSUSE doesn't have mp3 support (fluendo+gstreamer) out of the box anymore does it? That would be one major problem - since I assume the Ubuntu store wouldn't sell OGG Vorbis or Flac - or perhaps even wav?
As far as anybody currently knows/guesses, the UOMS is really just a front for Amazon's MP3 store, and will carry MP3s. Maybe this will change or is wrong, but remarks Canonical has made in the past suggest it. Amazon also has their (DRMed) video-on-demand service and there's no reason to think that Canonical wouldn't want a piece of that pie too.
Remember that Ubuntu is by far the most popular "switch" distro for people switching to Linux from Windows. Many of those people may not really care about open formats or even open source, as opposed to a platform where they aren't infected with viruses every three days. That may be Canonical's real target.
Many people also enjoy using iTunes, and Canonical doesn't rank below Apple in my books yet, so if they cater to these people I don't really see a problem, but as you outlined, no reason to help them do this.
It would also be a bit problematic to promote and support a competitor of openSUSE.
So I'd say Ubuntu music store should be a no-go - unless it provides a significant advantage over other options that I'm not aware of.
But generally speaking I wouldn't mind it if openSUSE shipped integration with a for-profit, non free software/free culture related music store - as long as it offered music in formats supported by openSUSE out of the box, without DRM and doesn't belong to a competitor of openSUSE.
Check out the Magnatune stores in Amarok and Rhythmbox :-)
I agree with Martin and you here, if it's a free culture oriented store I don't mind shipping it and supporting it that way.
But that Ubuntu One Store thing should stay outside of Banshee / Amarok in the main opensuse distribution, even if added to the main source, which I doubt is going to happen unless ubuntu starts contributing big time to banshee.
I wonder about our contrib repository though, the policies there are pretty wide except patent covered stuff.
Karsten
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. So what is our answer to:
Can we support for-profit organizations to make money?
Henne
Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 11:56:16 schrieb Henne Vogelsang:
I welcome this discussion, and think its a necessary one, but i would like to discuss it uncoupled from this example. So what is our answer to:
Can we support for-profit organizations to make money?
Are you hinting at a strategy to generate a revenue from openSUSE by providing additional services besides support / boxed edition? Like the Ubuntu Yahoo deal for browser startpage?
If yes, this really is propably not how Jeff expected the discussion to turn ;-)
I don't mind these actions as long as they are unintrusive, don't limit my choice and especially respect the explicit upstream projects choice. So if "openSUSE First MusikStore" store violates amarok policy then don't do it. If Firefox wishes to keep Google as startpage because it is contributing a lot of money or work respect that. But Firefox obviously doesn't expect that so switching to Microsoft Bing wouldn't get my disapproval, as I can just change it if I want to.
This is what I expect from openSUSE as a good citizen, nothing actually prohibits ignoring upstreams intentions, it's free software after all. If upstream has no policy about downstream generating profit from it one should ask first, not just ship it.
Karsten
PS: I used openSUSE MusikStore as Ubuntu provides a useful example here.
Hi,
On 02/23/2010 01:57 PM, Karsten König wrote:
Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 11:56:16 schrieb Henne Vogelsang:
I welcome this discussion, and think its a necessary one, but i would like to discuss it uncoupled from this example. So what is our answer to:
Can we support for-profit organizations to make money?
Are you hinting at a strategy to generate a revenue from openSUSE by providing additional services besides support / boxed edition?
We don't make any revenue from providing support or a boxed edition. A for-profit entity called open-slx does. Oh irony... 8)
http://news.opensuse.org/2009/12/10/opensuse-11-2-and-its-retail-box/
Like the Ubuntu Yahoo deal for browser startpage?
We certainly do things like this already. As i said, we support for instance the for-profit organization Adobe by providing a software they produce to our userbase. They see this as an opportunity to upsell other products they have and we as opportunity to provide our users with a good PDF reader.
If yes, this really is propably not how Jeff expected the discussion to turn ;-)
I hope thats the turn he expected because this is how i understand the question Jeff asked :) Maybe he can clarify...
I don't mind these actions as long as they are unintrusive, don't limit my choice and especially respect the explicit upstream projects choice.
Okay. So your answer to the posed question is also: Yes we can.
Henne
Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 14:14:09 schrieb Henne Vogelsang:
Hi,
On 02/23/2010 01:57 PM, Karsten König wrote:
Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 11:56:16 schrieb Henne Vogelsang:
I welcome this discussion, and think its a necessary one, but i would like to discuss it uncoupled from this example. So what is our answer to:
Can we support for-profit organizations to make money?
Are you hinting at a strategy to generate a revenue from openSUSE by providing additional services besides support / boxed edition?
We don't make any revenue from providing support or a boxed edition. A for-profit entity called open-slx does. Oh irony... 8)
Whoops =)
http://news.opensuse.org/2009/12/10/opensuse-11-2-and-its-retail-box/
Like the Ubuntu Yahoo deal for browser startpage?
We certainly do things like this already. As i said, we support for instance the for-profit organization Adobe by providing a software they produce to our userbase. They see this as an opportunity to upsell other products they have and we as opportunity to provide our users with a good PDF reader.
Hm I though shipping these was mainly a service to the users as people might want the Acrobat Reader (shocked mumble in the audience), I didn't knew opensuse does profit more then a broader package database and one more pdf reader.
If yes, this really is propably not how Jeff expected the discussion to turn ;-)
I hope thats the turn he expected because this is how i understand the question Jeff asked :) Maybe he can clarify...
I don't mind these actions as long as they are unintrusive, don't limit my choice and especially respect the explicit upstream projects choice.
Okay. So your answer to the posed question is also: Yes we can.
That's too short, Ubuntu also only "support[s] for-profit organizations to make money?" with the Ubuntu One store, the for-profit organisation Canonical makes the profit. If openSUSE is to introduce this to generate money for Novell I'd disapprove, if it is to benefit only openSUSE I'd approve if the upstream project doesn't disagree. So a simple yes doesn't cut it for me here.
As Vincent also used the wording, it comes down to beeing a good citizen.
Btw. my simple "only opensuse may get money, not novell" statement isn't really fair in regard to novells contribution to openSUSE, but I think the benefit for novell shouldn't be in direct money but of a better product to sell and support.
Karsten
On 2/23/2010 8:40 AM, Karsten König wrote:
Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 14:14:09 schrieb Henne Vogelsang:
Like the Ubuntu Yahoo deal for browser startpage?
Actually, that's a different question, but an interesting point.
The Mozilla Foundation is non-profit and gets most of its revenue via the Google start page and searches, which it puts towards itself and its products. Canonical is for-profit and is under no obligation to put the revenue it gains towards Ubuntu or any other free software.
Obviously, the money that Canonical makes by changing Firefox's home page is money that is then not given to Mozilla.
Canonical has every right to make this decision, no question. But it is interesting to think about. Unlike providing Adobe Reader to users for those that need it, this isn't about enhancing the user experience or enhancing FOSS; it's purely to make money.
And as an Amarok developer it's easy to see other ways that this can become a trend. For instance, someone could remove the Magnatune music store from Amarok (where a cut of proceeds goes back to our project to help pay for e.g. hosting costs) and could instead plug in their own store where Amarok gets nothing but they get a cut of profits.
Legal? Sure. FOSS-abiding? Sure. Nice? No.
We certainly do things like this already. As i said, we support for instance the for-profit organization Adobe by providing a software they produce to our userbase. They see this as an opportunity to upsell other products they have and we as opportunity to provide our users with a good PDF reader.
Hm I though shipping these was mainly a service to the users as people might want the Acrobat Reader (shocked mumble in the audience), I didn't knew opensuse does profit more then a broader package database and one more pdf reader.
I think the point was that by providing a broader package database and one more PDF reader, which is nominally the canonical PDF reader and sometimes renders PDF better than other alternatives or supports features that they don't, openSUSE users benefit from having that choice.
If yes, this really is propably not how Jeff expected the discussion to turn ;-)
I hope thats the turn he expected because this is how i understand the question Jeff asked :) Maybe he can clarify...
It's a fine turn, and an interesting one. I'm not solely focused on the Ubuntu One Music Store...that's a tree, not the forest. I'm interested in this interplay between for-profit and non-profit entities, and these different situations that have already risen or may arise.
--Jeff
Le mardi 23 février 2010, à 11:56 +0100, Henne Vogelsang a écrit :
I welcome this discussion, and think its a necessary one, but i would like to discuss it uncoupled from this example. So what is our answer to:
Can we support for-profit organizations to make money?
(Note: I would think it also applies to non-profit organizations that raises money in some way via the software we distribute)
In general, there's no reason to not support them. But I guess it all depends on how the organizations deal with various things, like privacy, licenses, patents, etc. That could be summed up as "Is this organization a good citizen?"
If we want to really work on a set of guidelines we want to apply when deciding if it's appropriate to support one organization, then we can detail all this, of course.
Vincent
* Vincent Untz vuntz@opensuse.org [02-23-10 08:18]:
Le mardi 23 février 2010, à 11:56 +0100, Henne Vogelsang a écrit :
Can we support for-profit organizations to make money?
(Note: I would think it also applies to non-profit organizations that raises money in some way via the software we distribute)
In general, there's no reason to not support them. But I guess it all depends on how the organizations deal with various things, like privacy, licenses, patents, etc. That could be summed up as "Is this organization a good citizen?"
If this road is traveled, one must face the decision of which to support, or not, when conflictions arise such as direct competitors, especially when minor differences determine that one is supported and the other not.
Possibly a *major* "can of worms"?
Open source is not *free* of bias.
I am not condemning the prospect, but wondering the effect.
Le mardi 23 février 2010, à 11:56 +0100, Henne Vogelsang a écrit :
I welcome this discussion, and think its a necessary one, but i would like to discuss it uncoupled from this example. So what is our answer to:
Sending this in another mail because I didn't want to pollute my other mail :-) I think one reason people might feel it's hard to uncouple the topic from this example is that Canonical distributes Ubuntu and does the Music Store for Ubuntu, which is a competitor of the openSUSE project.
In this specific case, that means supporting one competitor. Which might affect how people think of the issue.
Vincent
On 02/23/2010 02:19 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mardi 23 février 2010, à 11:56 +0100, Henne Vogelsang a écrit :
I welcome this discussion, and think its a necessary one, but i would like to discuss it uncoupled from this example. So what is our answer to:
Sending this in another mail because I didn't want to pollute my other mail :-) I think one reason people might feel it's hard to uncouple the topic from this example is that Canonical distributes Ubuntu and does the Music Store for Ubuntu, which is a competitor of the openSUSE project.
In this specific case, that means supporting one competitor. Which might affect how people think of the issue.
It does for me. See below.
While in general I have no objections to include stuff which could generate money for non-profit or for-profit as long as I have the choice to use it or not.
In the Ubuntu case I'm not so sure as it's direct "competition" to our project. It depends on how big the advantage of a service/application is for our users. I cannot see a black/white decision process here :-(
Wolfgang
On 2/23/2010 8:31 AM, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
While in general I have no objections to include stuff which could generate money for non-profit or for-profit as long as I have the choice to use it or not.
In the Ubuntu case I'm not so sure as it's direct "competition" to our project. It depends on how big the advantage of a service/application is for our users. I cannot see a black/white decision process here :-(
It isn't really competition in the sense that openSUSE isn't offering a music store. So Canonical making a profit and not openSUSE is almost beside the point.
In terms of this type of situation (and again, the Music Store just being an example), probably the real questions are more like:
1) What benefit does this provide for our users? 2) Does this fall in line with our existing policies? 3) If 1) and 2) don't have clear positive answers, is profit-sharing with openSUSE that can be directed back to the project worth overlooking 1) and 2)? 4) What about if this service directly conflicts with one already established by a non-profit entity?
--Jeff
Tirsdag den 23. februar 2010 18:10:36 skrev Jeff Mitchell:
It isn't really competition in the sense that openSUSE isn't offering a music store. So Canonical making a profit and not openSUSE is almost beside the point.
They'll re-invest the money they make from the music store in marketing their distro - and maybe even development of their own one day, who knows.
Hi,
On 02/23/2010 06:10 PM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
On 2/23/2010 8:31 AM, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
While in general I have no objections to include stuff which could generate money for non-profit or for-profit as long as I have the choice to use it or not.
In the Ubuntu case I'm not so sure as it's direct "competition" to our project. It depends on how big the advantage of a service/application is for our users. I cannot see a black/white decision process here :-(
In terms of this type of situation (and again, the Music Store just being an example), probably the real questions are more like:
- What benefit does this provide for our users?
- Does this fall in line with our existing policies?
- If 1) and 2) don't have clear positive answers, is profit-sharing
with openSUSE that can be directed back to the project worth overlooking
- and 2)?
- What about if this service directly conflicts with one already
established by a non-profit entity?
Only if we would be interested in balancing profit, based on who you are (for-profit, "good" player and so on). I'm no so keen to get us into that business...
Henne
Hi,
On 02/23/2010 02:19 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mardi 23 février 2010, à 11:56 +0100, Henne Vogelsang a écrit :
I welcome this discussion, and think its a necessary one, but i would like to discuss it uncoupled from this example. So what is our answer to:
I think one reason people might feel it's hard to uncouple the topic from this example is that Canonical distributes Ubuntu and does the Music Store for Ubuntu, which is a competitor of the openSUSE project.
In this specific case, that means supporting one competitor. Which might affect how people think of the issue.
I understand but isn't this fact then "just" another moral question? Something along the lines of:
Do we want to hamper with our competition?
It's probably trickier to answer than the other one because we have not established a behavior pattern already. My personal stance on this would be: No we don't. And specifically for this case: Ubuntu/Canonical is not our competition, they are part of the worldwide Free and Open Source community we mingle with. They are brothers and sisters. If they make a buck out of a music store I'm happy for them!
Henne
Tirsdag den 23. februar 2010 17:28:39 skrev Henne Vogelsang:
Ubuntu/Canonical is not our competition, they are part of the worldwide Free and Open Source community we mingle with. They are brothers and sisters. If they make a buck out of a music store I'm happy for them!
Maybe if their upstream contribution rate increased beyond ridiculousness I'd agree with you, but until then...
On 23/02/10 13:28, Henne Vogelsang wrote:
I understand but isn't this fact then "just" another moral question?
It is, and IMHO is not up to us to answer it.
It's probably trickier to answer than the other one because we have not established a behavior pattern already. My personal stance on this would be: No we don't.
Indeed, we don't, I think that where the users buy their music, or its format, or the fact canonical makes money from it is none of our business.
Personally I see nothing wrong with having this functionality as long as it works, it is legal and there is some human being looking at the code.(so it doesn't become our business due to breakage.)
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Henne Vogelsang wrote:
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
I think this also applies to creating and LTS version. These people are going to need to be paid or it will not happen. Right now in our initative, we are seriously looking at openSUSE because we can us the resources Novell provides and get assistance. But to really do this even for just the similar products SLES has but using the openSUSE ones creates a need for funding. As the number of packages that need love and attention are increated. It really would take a paid team to provide an LTS. The main reason for openSUSE LTS is it has become a community driven distribution. Any community memember is able to contribute. For Kernel and other specail packages only a few people outside Novel would I trust to make thes type of changes. It takes more expertise and these people sould really need support to do the backports and various things needed.
Hi,
On 02/24/2010 04:04 PM, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Henne Vogelsang wrote:
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
I think this also applies to creating and LTS version.
I'm sorry but what applies to creating an LTS version? I fail to see the connection here.
These people are going to need to be paid or it will not happen.
Then it will not happen, I'm afraid.
Henne
-
Boyd Lynn Gerber -
Bryen M. Yunashko -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Henne Vogelsang -
Jeff Mitchell -
Karsten König -
Martin Schlander -
Patrick Shanahan -
Rajko M. -
Vincent Untz -
Wolfgang Rosenauer