On Sat, 2015-07-18 at 18:13 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Saturday, July 18, 2015 02:38:55 PM cprofitt wrote: > > I read a great deal over information that hits the planet and if it > > contains links to content in other places I usually try to read that as > > well. I took the time to write the Kubuntu Council in an effort to work > > collaboratively with them. I did so not as a member of the CC, but as an > > Ubuntu Community member. I take no personal offense to the comment on > > Reddit, but do feel that the comment adds to the ongoing tensions in the > > Ubuntu Community. In order to work as a community there must be some > > level of civility and trust in one another. > > > > You asked that Jonathan be treated like anyone else moving forward and I > > intend on doing that. I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to > > myself and any other member of the CC. > > > > I leave any action or non-action on the statement I pointed out up to > > the discretion of the Kubuntu Council. > > I think you are confusing cause and effect here. Many people feel very > strongly about Canonical licensing policies that they feel are hostile to > free > software. That's the cause. The effect is people speaking out about it. I > don't find it surprising at all that, given the strength of feeling on the > matter, people speak strongly. > > That's not what's dividing the community. What's dividing the community are > policies that are much broader than the need to be to protect Canonical's > legitimate business interests. > > Scott K
Scott: I can assure you that I am not confusing cause and effect here. Cause and effect can not be so neatly segmented. I acknowledge that the licensing policies are causing some people to speak out about it. I disagree with three things: 1. Speaking out strongly needs to be abrasive. 2. Speaking out strongly needs to divide the community in to 'groups'. 3. That speaking out does not itself become a cause of further disruption to the community. I will admit that I have a predisposition against statements that seek to assert negative assumptions about groups of people, but despite that I see no positive benefit from making such broad and negative assertions. As a note about the IP policy I would like to make you aware that I have suggested that the community council consider doing three things: 1. Develop direct contacts at the FSF and SFC so they have access to independent advice with regards to legal issue of interest to the Ubuntu Community. 2. The CC should pro-actively query the various flavors on any concerns they have with the current updated IP policy. 3. The CC should make, as promised, a statement with regard to the updated IP Policy. As part of this statement the CC will want to include a statement on what its role is regarding the IP Policy and Canonical. There is always room for improvement, but I do not feel that bombast nor abrasive language is productive in working collaboratively seeking continued improvement. I certainly would welcome, in another thread or privately, a even well-mannered discussion of the items that you are concerned about. I may have a different view of things, but I am always open to trying to see other points of view as long as I am not being treated poorly or insulted in the process. Charles -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
