|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
So for Canonical to say they are "afraid" of
obligations under the
GPLv3 when the copyright holder
and creator of the GPL says they don't need
to
be afraid, is dispositive. It's not a business
issue. It's a legal issue, and
Canonical is wrong.
Specifically FSF says that Canonical does not
have an obligation, but their distributors do as long as Canonical chooses
Grub2.
As has been stated many times in other threads, Canonical needs to be
concerned for their distributors. So I see it as a minor point to say that the
distributor needs to release the key rather than Canonical. Is that the mistake
you refer to? After all, where would the distributor get the key from? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
I am afraid the legal issue is only half of the picture. Having the legal half
right doesn't negate the other half.
The other half is whether Canonical have a business interest in making sure
their distributors are not liable under the GPL 3 when they distribute Ubuntu on
computers carrying the Windows 8 logo. Remember that the paying clients of
Canonical are the hardware vendors which rely on Canonical expertise to make
Ubuntu work fine on their hardware. These vendors will not like having to choose
between being in breach of the GPL 3 and being in breach of their contract with
Microsoft. Given this alternative they will avoid distributing GPL 3 software.
If Canonical want to keep their paying clients happy they have to care about
that.
I am afraid Microsoft have found a way to make for profit Linux distributors
cave in for business reasons.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|