“Ubuntu is entirely committed to the principles of free software development; we encourage people to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on.” is what used to be printed on the front page of ubuntu.com. This is still true but recently has come under attack when the project’s main sponsor, Canonical, put up an IP policy which broke the GPL and free software licences generally by claiming packages need to be recompiled. Rather than apologising for this in the modern sense of the word by saying sorry, various staff members have apologised in an older sense of the word meaning to excuse. But everything in Ubuntu is free to share, copy and modify (or just free to share and copy in the case of restricted/multiverse). The archive admins wills only let in packages which comply to this and anyone saying otherwise is incorrect.
In this twitter post Michael Hall says “If a derivative distro uses PPAs it needs an additional license.” But he doesn’t say what there is that needs an additional licence, the packages already have copyright licences, all of them free software.
It should be very obvious that Canonical doesn’t control the world and a licence is only needed if there is some law that allows them to restrict what others want to do. There’s been a few claims on what that law might be but nothing that makes sense when you look at it. It’s worth examining their claims because people will fall for them and that will destroy Ubuntu as a community project. Community projects depend on everyone having the freedom to do whatever they want with the code else nobody will give their time to a project that someone else will then control.
In this blog post Dustin Kirkland again doesn’t say what needs a licence but says one is needed based on Geographical Indication. It’s hard to say if he’s being serious. A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin and are then assessed before being registered. There is no Geographical Indication registration in Ubuntu and it’s completely irrelevant to everything. So lets move on.
A more dangerous claim you can see on this reddit post where Michael Hall claims “for permissively licensed code where you did not build the binary, there is no pre-existing right to redistribution of that binary”. This is incorrect, everything in Ubuntu has a free software licence with an explicit right to redistribution. (Or a few bits are public domain where no licence is needed at all.) Let’s take the libX11 as a random example, it gets shipped with a copyright file containing this licence:
“Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction”
In Matthew Garrett’s recent blog post he reports that “Canonical assert that the act of compilation creates copyright over the binaries”. Fortunately this is untrue and can be ignored. Copyright requires some creative input, it’s not enough to run a work through a computer program. In the very unlikely case a court did decide that compiling a programme added some copyright then they would not decide that copyright was owned by the owners of the computer it ran on but on the copyright owners of the compiler, which is the Free Software Foundation and the copyright would be GPL.
In conclusion there is nothing which restricts people making derivatives of Ubuntu except the trademark, and removing branding is easy. (Even that is unnecessary unless you’re trading which most derivatives don’t, but it’s a sign of good faith to remove it anyway.)
Which is why Mark Shuttleworth says “you are fully entitled and encouraged to redistribute .debs and .iso’s”. Lovely.
9 Replies to “Ubuntu Archive Still Free Software”
Are you saying a) it’s not true that they assert it, or b) they do assert it, but what they assert is not true?
Because according to §3¶7 of the Intellectual Property Rights Policy: “Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. …”
(Where “Ubuntu”, in context, refers to “Ubuntu the distribution”)
If Canonical do not assert copyright over the binaries, under what branch of intellectual property law do they claim that the recompile is required?
It should not be a Trademark issue to redistribute any individual Ubuntu-branded binary package if the package itself is an unmodified bit-for-bit copy of the package that Ubuntu ships. That’s Ubuntu’s branding on Ubuntu’s actual product. Similarly, it should not be a Trademark issue to ship a collection of unmodified Ubuntu packages. Even if modified Ubuntu packages (or non-Ubuntu packages) are shipped alongside, this should not be a problem for the “real” Ubuntu packages if the not-original-Ubuntu packages are not branded as Ubuntu, and if the collection as a whole is not branded as Ubuntu – i.e. if you don’t “associate it with the Trademarks”.
So if it’s not a copyright licensing issue, and it shouldn’t appear to be a trademark issue, and I very much doubt it’s a patent issue or a trade secret issue, what intellectual property rights are Canonical asserting that require the recompilation of otherwise-unmodified packages being distributed in a manner not associated with the Ubuntu trademarks?
Exactly. They are being deliberately vague because there is no restriction. As soon as you ask that question they start fobbing you off.
How about “act of compilation” as in creative effort required to put a distro together from a bunch of source code (selecting defaults, integration of various pieces, distro-patching things…)
That would give the creator copyright over the result (the ubuntu iso/binaries), which would then need to be licensed in a way that meets the licenses of the inputs (GPL, BSD, MPL…)
You’ll note that the recent changes didn’t touch on the copyright claims, just made the trump clause more prominent.
The kubuntu-meta package is put together by me and is GPL licenced and always has been
> everything in Ubuntu is free to share, copy and modify (or just
> free to share and copy in the case of restricted/multiverse).
Agh 🙁 , although packages like rar (packages.ubuntu.com/rar) are not even free to use (although some people have some different meanings for “free/libre” and “use”).
Anyway, thanks for Kubuntu!
Comments are closed.