[ale] Canonical makes Apple look so good...

[Tim Watts]

You go to a small public beech one sunny day with your beech chair under
arm looking for a nice spot. You find it, open your chair there and head
back to your car for the rest of your stuff. Upon return, you find one
Mr. Shuttleworth & Co. has replaced your chair with his and moved yours
3 feet from the tide...

Not to worry, I'm sure Canonical will put the money to good use funding
Unity.</half-snark>


On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 17:28 -0500, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 17:07 -0500, Jim Kinney wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Michael B. Trausch <mike at trausch.us> wrote:
> > > What Canonical is doing is ethically wrong and is the level of crap I'd
> > > expect to see from a politician, not someone who claims to care about
> > > the free software ecosystem(s).
> > 
> > I think you hit the nail on the head. Cannonical is NOT about the free
> > software ecosystem. Cannonical is as much of a corporate leech as
> > Oracle.
> > 
> > They have always been that way.
> 
> Perhaps I'm just young, dumb, and naïve; I've seen them as pretty stupid
> sometimes, I've certainly noted their lack of (direct) upstream
> contributions (though they do seem to go out of their way to "launder"
> them through Debian at times), but up until now I've never seen them as
> a truly harmful entity.
> 
> Now I'm convinced that they need to be ejected from our universe, though
> I suppose that's as useless a statement as any.  It's not like I have
> the power to effect that change.  That's probably a good thing.
> 
> > SuSE used to distribute their distro with a closed-source installer.
> > Thus I quit even tinkering with their stuff. They saw the light,
> > opened the code and make themselves some serious geek cred hacking
> > video drivers for X. That was an (almost) excusable infraction.
> > 
> > But to change the affiliate code on software you get to use for free
> > so the developers get cut out of a few nickles to feed their
> > caffeine/music habits shows a serious (in my mind) lack of ethics.
> 
> If only it was to feed their caffeine and music habits.  They were
> donating it all to GNOME.  Nevermind that: it's just as wrong either
> way.
> 
> I've never really thought that there would ever be a time where I would
> think of a license revocation clause as a good thing, but I'm starting
> to think that it would be.  I know that if I were the people behind
> Banshee, I'd be absolutely livid.  Hell, I'm livid as it is.
> 
> Of course, they have no grounds to sue, they have no method by which to
> revoke the license to Canonical, and they have no means by which to get
> their (well-deserved!) money without convincing everyone to install
> their own packaged version.  Leaves a nasty, nasty taste in my mouth.
> Just like politicians do.  Nasty.
> 
> Ubuntu 11.04: The Nasty Nabber.
> 
> 	--- Mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo