Ubuntu turns to crowdfunding

[PaulW2U]

Here is the question I can't seem to answer to my own satisfaction: Canonical wants to be a phone manufacturer now. Do we, as contributors to free and open source software, want our efforts to go toward helping somebody sell phones?

Although I have considered myself to have been part of the Ubuntu community for around three and a half years I now like to think of myself as being part of the 'wider' community. I have little interest in promoting smartphones as they just seem to be a compromise in every respect, i.e. small screen, small keyboard/keypad and very limited battery life.

My current line of thinking is that I'd much rather promote the various flavours of the Ubuntu family, not just Kubuntu. May be I'm just one of those 'older' users that thinks very differently to the way Canonical does.

At some point Canonical have to make some money and releasing a new 'free' version of *buntu every six months is not the way to do it.

[whatthefunk]

Here is the question I can't seem to answer to my own satisfaction: Canonical wants to be a phone manufacturer now. Do we, as contributors to free and open source software, want our efforts to go toward helping somebody sell phones?

No.

[Frank616]

Steve:

Ah, the ethical questions....

You may want to split this thread off.

Isn't Mac OSX based on the open source Darwin project under the BSD license, where Apple is not obliged to publish anything back?

Canonical IS obliged to publish back. Is it wrong for them to make money on it? Would it be wrong for any company to make a commercial success out of Linux? Red Hat is a commercial success. They sell support instead of phones. Is there a difference? In fact, would it not be of benefit to the community as a whole to have a viable commercial entity using Linux and contributing back to the community?

Frank.

[NickStone]

There is nothing within the GPL that stops individuals or companies from making money from Open Source software. The main thing from the GPL is that if you write code under the GPL you must publish the code for anyone to examine/re-write/compile/re-use. As for Canonical contributing to the open source community, from what I have read over the past few years Canonical contribute very little to the open source community whether its in kernel development, desktop development (Gnome, KDE etc.).

I believe the reason why Canonical have developed their own Desktop (Unity) and graphical server (Mia) is simply down to control. They want control over their own distribution and wanted more control over development of sofrware such as Gnome (for example) but because they didn't get it they then began to create their own software.

If Canonical are serious about making money from Ubuntu I think the better way is to set up a "Pay what you think its worth" system.

[Buddlespit]

Here is the question I can't seem to answer to my own satisfaction: Canonical wants to be a phone manufacturer now. Do we, as contributors to free and open source software, want our efforts to go toward helping somebody sell phones?

I may not be understanding your statement, please correct me if I'm wrong...

I'll use Googles Android as an example. The OS on my phone is written under the GPL. I can download and modify and compile the source. I can fork the source and continue developement in a different direction, using different methods to achieve a goal that I have envisioned. At some point after the fork, the code will stop being what the originial source wanted and become something completely different. Would it then become my code and not Googles? Would I then have to follow GPL? It would be pretty hard to prove that a line of C Google used in their libraries is unique.

But I digress. The OS on my phone is free. The hardware is a different matter altogether.

[Frank616]

Nick:

from what I have read over the past few years Canonical contribute very little to the open source community whether its in kernel development, desktop development (Gnome, KDE etc.).

Are they required to contribute in those areas to be considered contributors?

I believe the reason why Canonical have developed their own Desktop (Unity) and graphical server (Mia) is simply down to control. They want control over their own distribution and

Mir is GPL'd. So is Unity. How is it then that they are not contributions?

wanted more control over development of sofrware such as Gnome (for example) but because they didn't get it they then began to create their own software.

Isn't that what a fork is all about? In what way is that wrong? Gnome itself, IIUC, is just such a 'striking out on its own' because of frustration with what was then available. It was controversial then too. Today it is accepted (or was prior to Gnome 3 ).

There is an interesting overview of Mir in the August 2013 issue of Linux Format (What on Earth is Mir -- pp 54 & 55) that suggests that Canonical's 'going it on their own' is an effort to get something NOW that they can use to further their vision of convergence, before the window of opportunity for a Linux phone / tablet / TV closes. The community as a whole does great work, and we are all happy with the amazing strides that free software has made. Is it also possible that 'design my committee' is inherently slower than what is needed in a competitive smartphone / tablet / streaming TV world? Apple and Google know the hard facts of business. That is the world that Canonical is moving into with Linux.

I'm not a supporter of Canonical. I just hate to 'jump on the bandwagon' in any direction. The above comments are designed to stimulate discussion, and (disclaimer) are not necessarily the opinion of the author.

Frank.

[Frank616]

Buddlespit:

As I understand it:

At some point after the fork, the code will stop being what the originial source wanted and become something completely different. Would it then become my code and not Googles?

No.

Would I then have to follow GPL?

Yes.

That is the beauty of the GPL. You can do whatever you want with the code, but you have to publish it back to the community again afterward. It all goes back into the common 'code pot' that anyone else can then use. The code belongs to the community, not to any one contributor.

It would be pretty hard to prove that a line of C Google used in their libraries is unique.

Ve haf vays! That is what Eben Moglen does.

Frank.

[kubicle]

That is the beauty of the GPL. You can do whatever you want with the code, but you have to publish it back to the community again afterward. It all goes back into the common 'code pot' that anyone else can then use. The code belongs to the community, not to any one contributor.

There is no obligation to contribute back in the GPL. Only if you distribute (modified) GPL code, you must do so using the GPL license (which means you have to make the source code available, for example)...if you do not distribute (as in you only use it yourself), you don't need to share your modifications or the source.

GPL also does not remove copyright, the original author still holds copyright over the code s/he has written, the code it just licensed to everyone under the GPL license.

[Frank616]

Kubicle:

Thank you for the clarification.

Frank.

[SteveRiley]

The point of my earlier comment is this. When Canonical was focused on building a high-quality and free desktop operating system, I had great interest in committing my personal time to its success. Canonical is now focusing on selling phones (an effort that the crowdfunding failure shows might not be wise) and on "unifying" multi-device user interfaces (in which the desktop must necessarily suffer).

Many others share my misgivings. Consider Matthew Garrett:

But perhaps more importantly, having a goal can attract people. Ubuntu's Bug #1 was a solid statement of intent. Being freer than Microsoft wasn't enough. Ubuntu had to be better than Microsoft products on every axis, and joining Ubuntu meant that you were going to be part of that. Now it's been closed and Ubuntu's wandered off into convergence land, and signing up to spend your free time on producing something to help someone sell phones is much less compelling than doing it to produce a product you can give to your friends.

Please don't misunderstand: I have no intention of abandoning Kubuntu. Though at times I worry that being hitched to Ubuntu will become more and more of a challenge over the years.

[Frank616]

Steve:

Please don't misunderstand: I have no intention of abandoning Kubuntu. Though at times I worry that being hitched to Ubuntu will become more and more of a challenge over the years.

Understood.

Canonical is now focusing on selling phones (an effort that the crowdfunding failure shows might not be wise) and on "unifying" multi-device user interfaces (in which the desktop must necessarily suffer).

Is not the selling of phones just a part of Canonical? And, if they succeed, would it not add to the value if you could "give to your friends" a free and top notch operating system that they can run on their phone? A lot of hardware goes out of date from the software side of things before the hardware itself becomes obsolete. I rooted my first Android phone and installed a custom ROM as Motorola refused to update it. Being able to update a Linux phone would (likely) be much easier.

I would love to have a true Linux phone, with access to the wealth of Linux apps. I see Android hobbled by this lack, and iOS, well....

The desktop currently suffers, no doubt. Might we see something come out of this unification that will be of benefit to the unwashed masses so that they too can enjoy the stability and power of Linux? Power users will (probably) always want a proper desktop. I can't see myself abandoning it for Unity or similar. However, that is my opinion of the current state of convergence.

I can see my decidedly non-technical wife benefiting from something like this. One of her major complaints now is that all the devices she tries to use are too complicated. Personally, I see it as more a case of them all having different interfaces. She is learning to use her Android tablet. The next step will be to wean her off her feature phone for an Android phone. That should be easier, as the interfaces are similar. Now, if she could operate the TV / computer / sound system in the living room with the same interface, that is close to nirvana.

If that is the direction that Canonical is headed, then I say more power to them! Can't we give them credit for the contributions that they ARE making? It may not be MY cup of tea, but what potential it opens up for 'total world domination'.

Frank.

[Snowhog]

Canonical did not/does not want to become a hardware company. The Ubuntu Edge funding campaign was for a "Limited Edition Proof of Concept" production of what a fully convergent smartphone could be.

I will agree that the approach - crowd funding - might not have been the best approach, and for sure, it didn't sit will (enough) with the masses to be successful. Would it have been that much of a gamble for Shuttleworth to have opted to fund the idea outright and then offer the Ubuntu Edge for sale? Don't know. Could he have afforded to do so, even if he took a loss on the project? Maybe. But he is a business man, and not one to just 'burn his money'.

[oshunluvr]

Personally, as I noted early on, I was and am totally in favor of the convergence of PC and phone and I would have LOVED to get my hands one of those. Now, I'm looking for a phone powerful enough to do it with on my own - I like the idea that much.

I really wanted a sapphire screen too!

[Snowhog]

Personally, as I noted early on, I was and am totally in favor of the convergence of PC and phone and I would have LOVED to get my hands one of those. Now, I'm looking for a phone powerful enough to do it with on my own - I like the idea that much.

I really wanted a sapphire screen too!

The Ubuntu Edge would/could have been compared (as in a concept product) to the Delorean, or the Tesla 'all-electric' sports car. I too, would have loved to have one of these phones. Non-scratchable screen? Oh yeah. That would have been sweet!

[Frank616]

Oshunluvr:

Personally, as I noted early on, I was and am totally in favor of the convergence of PC and phone and I would have LOVED to get my hands one of those. Now, I'm looking for a phone powerful enough to do it with on my own - I like the idea that much.

I really wanted a sapphire screen too!

Now we just need one with with a 5.5" screen.

Snowhog:

Canonical did not/does not want to become a hardware company.

Sounds good to me. However, that is the premise that some here have taken. My take is: Even if they DID want to become a hardware company, so what? Don't we all benefit anyway if they open source the OS?

If we get a smartphone version of Linux, I'll be very happy. For me, that is more than enough reason to root a phone. Hey, I'll even use Unity if that is what is required. I would love to have many of my desktop Linux apps on something like the Galaxy Note 3. (If the S-Pen were not supported in Linux, that wouldn't bother me a lot. I use mine on my Note 1, but not often.)

Frank.