Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #206246

Roberto [SOLVED] -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

Show all headers | View raw

On 3/13/19 5:32 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:51:57PM -0400, deb wrote:
>> On 3/13/19 4:26 PM, *Jonathan Dowland* wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:48:04PM -0400, deb wrote:
>>>>       So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for
>>>> years, will see nothing when canonical is sold.
>>> Red Hat employs thousands of people who are writing code, so when IBM
>>> acquires them, they will see something. You might have to revise this
>>> point (for Red Hat, at least) up from "thousands" to a higher number.
>>>
>> Interesting..
>>
>> So you are saying that you do Not think that thousands of people since the
>> beginning of Redhat have busted their butt on this or that module that went
>> into the "product" Redhat execs [and some thousands] later made millions on
>> - but got zero dollars for their efforts from the sale?
>>
> You seem to imply that the only possible reason that someone would have
> to work on code would be to eventually receive money.
>
> Some people do it for fun, some for recognition, some for money, and
> some for a combination of those things.
>
> If you personally have made contributions to open source and you feel
> that they are being misappropriated, then there are organizations that
> will help you determine if licenses on your code are being violated.
> You could do that and if you find that is the case then you can choose
> whether to seek legal remedy.
>
> If you personally have made contributions to open source and you feel
> unhappy that someone else is benefitting financially from your work but
> they are otherwise abiding by the terms of the open source license under
> which you placed your work, then I encourage you to consider your
> objective in working on open source software.  It may be that you
> fundamentally misunderstand open source and why people sometimes develop
> it without monetary compensation.
>
>> Or are you saying if [Some] make money on the backs of open source work;
>> that justifies the means to get there?
>>
> What means and to get where?  If I write code and sell it or give it
> away under an open source license (whether that be copyleft or
> non-copyleft) then what difference does it make if someone makes a
> little money or a bunch of money?  So long as the abide by the terms of
> the license, that is.
>
> Do you have examples or evidence of Canonical benefiting improperly from
> open source licensed software?  That is, not abiding by the terms of the
> license.
>
> I, on the other hand, have ample evidence of both Red Hat and Canonical
> paying people to write millions of lines of code that have been given
> away to open source projects and the larger community as well.
>
>> (I fear this will happen to All meaningful open-source projects.)
>>
>>
>> And ... just so the cherry-picked point above does not fall out of context;
>> here was my full thought::
>>
>>
>>
>> re: Canonical being a great company as postured by one here:
>>
>>
>>    * They have already been caught selling search results to Amazon.
>>
> That is a business decision.  Likely a poor one.  However, I do not see
> what it has to do with the issue of compensating those who work on open
> source software, which seems to be the main point of your message.
>
>>    * the board let go ALL non-corporate members - the People's voice.
>>
> What negative impact, specifically, do you think this will have?  How
> does this relate to your central point of compensating open source
> developers?
>
>>    * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.
>>
> Please define "sleep with" in this context.
>
>>    * The owner is hell bent on getting to IPO level.
>>
> Canonical is privately held.  It is the owners' prerogative whether to
> remain privately held or to try for a public offering.  How does this
> relate to your central point?
>
>>       So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for years,
>> will see nothing when canonical is sold.
>>
>>    * I have more
>>
> I find that doubtful.
>
>> Ubuntu would be one of the last distributions
>>
>> I would ever recommend.
>>
> I have my own reasons for not being particularly fond of Ubuntu, but
> they are technical in nature.
>
> Do you happen to have anything concrete?  Or do you only have the sale
> of Amazon search results accompanied by a bunch of hand waving?
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto
>

You *obviously* know best Roberto.


 > I find that doubtful.

This single line shouts out that our communications are complete.


Have a great day.


I'm marking this one [Solved] and leaving it right there.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? deb <deb@rangingthoughts.org> - 2019-03-11 18:50 +0100
  Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-03-11 21:50 +0100
    Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-03-11 22:00 +0100
  Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-03-13 21:30 +0100
    Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great  company? deb <deb@rangingthoughts.org> - 2019-03-13 22:00 +0100
      Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-03-13 22:30 +0100
        EEE deb <deb@rangingthoughts.org> - 2019-03-13 22:50 +0100
        Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a  great company? David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2019-03-14 03:30 +0100
          Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-03-14 04:20 +0100
            [OT] EEE, Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-03-14 15:40 +0100
              [OT] EE, Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? deb <deb@rangingthoughts.org> - 2019-03-14 16:30 +0100
                Re: [OT] EE, Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-03-14 17:20 +0100
      Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a  great company? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-03-13 22:40 +0100
        Roberto [SOLVED] -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being  a great company? deb <deb@rangingthoughts.org> - 2019-03-13 23:10 +0100

csiph-web