Oracle intersted in buying Ubunutu

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Wednesday 19 April 2006 18:41, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 14:49 +1000, Alexander Jacob Tsykin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 April 2006 08:42, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > > To me, Linux is Linux.  Being an old hippie, I'm here for the
> > > philosophy and, "...humanity toward others.".
> > > If Oracle or any other corporate entity is in, I'm out and danged
> > > quickly.  /IF/ this happens then, Debian, here I (and others I'm sure)
> > > come again.
> > >
> > > Cybe R. Wizard
> >
> > Let me start by saying I am NOT in favour of selling Ubuntu, so please
> > don't flame me.
> >
> > If Linux is to take on Microsoft and win, it will have to have commercial
> > backers. End of story. If this means that Oracle, or Novell, or Redhat or
> > any other company interested in Linux is to have a say in the direction
> > of the Operating System, then so be it.
>
> Uhm, so you consider Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical to be 'non
> commercial backing'?
>
clearly it is, but one company is not enough. And lets face facts, Mark 
Shuttleworth is much more interested in promoting Ubuntu than in making a 
profit from it.
> First, it would be good to get the terminology straight. 'Linux' is the
> kernel, nothing more, nothing less. 'Linux' on its own will not win
> against Microsoft and the comparison is that of apples and oranges.
> 'Linux' is already backed by some of the biggest corporations on the
> planet, notably, IBM is donating technology to it for example.
> Ubuntu, of which 'Linux' is a crucial part, already have excellent
> commercial backing in the shape of Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth. Why
> would Novell or RedHat be interested in trying to acquire Canonical and
> Ubuntu??
>
I'm aware of all this. However, the more commercial backing, the better. 
Consider that Ubuntu does benefit from both of their contributions, eg. Xgl 
and Compiz from Novell.
> > T illustrate this, consider the fiasco of GPLv3. Linus Torvalds said that
> > the Linux kernel will not be under this license, because of its anti-DRM
> > provisions. While he doesn't approve of DRM (and neither do I), he
> > understands that many companies will not invest in Linux if they cannot
> > use DRM, and he is above all a pragmatist.
>
> You fail it again. GPLv3 does not happen with the Linux kernel partly
> because the gpg signing keys would become considered DRM and have to be
> handed out as well. Not clever and not going to happen. Would you feel
> comfortable handing out your private keys just because of a poorly
> worded license agreement? I know what my response is to anyone asking
> for my private key or pass phrase - and it ain't a pleasant one...
>
> Also, if GPLv2 does everything that is required for the Linux kernel
> project, why change?
>
the reason Linus stated is because it would deter commercial investment. Do 
your research before making a claim. Many commercial companies, like Novell, 
have claimed that they will not be able to subscribe to it or use software 
which falls under GPLv3.
> > For Linux to succeed, we are going to have to make some compromises with
> > principle. Linus Torvalds understands this. So does Mark Shuttleworth
> > (consider that he has not locked proprietary code out of the
> > distribution, far from it, he gave it its own repository, the
> > multiverse). While the multiverse is not supported, you can actually
> > activate by pressing a button in Synaptic, it is one of the core
> > acknowledged Ubuntu repositories.
>
> There is being pragmatic and there is compromising on principles and
> there is selling your soul to the devil.
>
> For Ubuntu to strike through to corporate desktops, it has to be able to
> provide what is needed on corporate desktops. Not all of that is free as
> in speech. Locking it out of the distro (making it impossible to
> install) would not be very clever. This is the pragmatic part, you can
> install whatever commercial software you like, and Ubuntu will not stop
> you. The principles part is not compromised, as multiverse is not
> shipped with Ubuntu. You have to do something to get it. Housing
> pre-packaged free as in beer (or to pay for) software in a single, easy
> to get to, place makes business sense.
>
> I disagree with you on multiverse being 'core' to Ubuntu. It's a bolt-on
> for whizz-bang stuff that you may find useful, a bit like marillat's
> repository.
>
It is used all the time. It is promoted extensively in the Wiki and the 
Forums. It is unofficially official, and we are encouraged to use it.
> > Ultimately, we will have to cooperate with commercial ventures, and the
> > only question is how much? I am in favour of corporate investment as long
> > as the community still has a voice, so why not allow them to buy the
> > forums? As fr Ubuntu itself, all the intellectual rights are owned by the
> > Ubuntu foundation, and I would be against it selling them.
>
> Co-operate with commercial ventures, business as usual you mean? If your
> idea of co-operation would be for Canonical to become a batty-boy for
> companies like Oracle and Microsoft I have seriously misjudged you.
>
I did not say that. I said that companies should be allowed to participate in 
and invest in Linux, and should not be presented with gross disincentives to 
do so.
> Just consider Malone #1 for a minute. No, make that 24 hours. Then we
> can talk again on this issue.
>
I have seen it. Please don't patronise me. Its demeaning much more to you than 
to me.
> By all means flog the web forum to highest bidder, as long as the links
> to the mailing lists are severed at the same time.
why?

Sasha