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 -- Roberto C. Sánchez
