A must read very important news

[gnomek]

Jonathan's words are straightforward. In the situation they didn't give clear and satisfactory answers for two years is perfectly understandable to me.

The good thing is the story became public, and perhaps this will make Canonical rethink their position, eventually.

The point is they should have consulted SFLC before they introduced their IP policy.

News:
Ubuntu Community Council, Jonathan Riddell discuss their recent fallout

The author refers to his previous article,
Making sense of the Ubuntu licensing fiasco
where he refers to Jonathan's blog entry about licensing:
No Licence Needed for Kubuntu Derivative Distributions

I follow news on
https://plus.google.com/s/kubuntu%20council

https://plus.google.com/+JosPoortvli...ts/2yGYMzzEaVz

[GreyGeek]

@SR....Thanks for the link. That was interesting.

Interesting indeed. Bruce Byfield has been a long time antagonist of all things Linux. The first comment to the article is interesting:

>Yet the question remains: if Canonical could become profitable, why hasn't it?Same reason most other businesses are expanding well beyond the means of their market share: because money is cheap. Central banks are holding interest rates near zero to prop up governments the world over. This in-turn means cheap credit for big business, the first in line for those loans after the big banks themselves.
Canonical may be in an over-leveraged position, but so are many "profitable," companies at present. Take Amazon.com for example. Their stock price is over 600x earnings so while they are turning a profit on paper, their ability to produce value equal to their supposed worth is absolutely zero. There's no way in hell they could become 600x more profitable without destroying their competetive price scheme.
The pressure to be hyper-leveraged and in debt will continue until central banks either collapse in a hyper-inflationary firestorm or hike interest rates. Given the latter would essentially cause soverign default in nearly every nation on earth, I think the former is more likely.

Around 2010 I read an interview with SABDFL in a German mag. In it he mentioned he had been sinking about $10M/yr into Ubuntu. That part was later edited out of the article and later still the article was scrubbed from their site. A $105M loan is just about right. It represents 20% of his initial fortune.

Bottom line: I don't believe Canonical will make it past 2017. Better to begin rebasing now rather than waiting for the floor to drop out or the roof cave in.

[SteveRiley]

The first comment to the article is interesting:

Take Amazon.com for example. Their stock price is over 600x earnings so while they are turning a profit on paper, their ability to produce value equal to their supposed worth is absolutely zero. There's no way in hell they could become 600x more profitable without destroying their competetive price scheme.

Changing directions a bit. I fail to understand why people criticize Amazon for not being profitable enough. The fact is that parking gobs of money in the bank is not part of Amazon's business plan. They invest nearly all their revenue back into the business. Data center growth at Amazon is incomprehensible -- and necessary to support the meteoric growth of AWS. Success can be measured in many ways; $billions in the bank isn't the only one.

[InsideJob]

The disconnect is you think it's a free market economy where the best and most profitable succeed. That's simply not the case. In fact, since Nixon took us off the gold standard they've been printing that green toilet paper like there's no tomorrow. It's the banksters who decide the winners and losers, simply by extending huge credit lines to some and not to others. If you're looking for examples in the technology world, I encourage you to look at how nVidia robbed 3DFX and how Infineon robbed Rambus.

Phony fiat currency is the root of all that's wrong, IMHO.

[gnomek]

https://plus.google.com/+JosPoortvli...ts/2yGYMzzEaVz
Mark Shuttleworth:

Jonathan's conduct is unacceptable in the Ubuntu community, and that's a final position. What is now open for discussion is how to best have KDE represented in the project. I'm sure people who appreciate what's special about Ubuntu and KDE will step up to that task.

Better to begin rebasing now rather than waiting for the floor to drop out or the roof cave in.

As Canonical owns rights to Kubuntu name, Kubuntu can't move to Debian base, only individuals like developers, supporters and users can move. This means some people may replace current developers, supporters and users. That would be odd.
Or if there is not enough people to stay, Kubuntu would naturally cease to exist?

Am I correct?

[GreyGeek]

..
As Canonical owns rights to Kubuntu name, Kubuntu can't move to Debian base, only individuals like developers, supporters and users can move. This means some people may replace current developers, supporters and users. That would be odd.
Or if there is not enough people to stay, Kubuntu would naturally cease to exist?

Am I correct?

Not exactly. The name (branding) is what they own. Kubuntu is also using Canonical's repositories (servers) and Internet connections. AFAIK, that's all. Blue-Systems, a German firm, pays several developers to work on Kubuntu and some of its corporate stuff. The paid developers and volunteers would have to set up servers, repositories and Internet, assuming B-S would pay for them. If B-S doesn't contribute those items then K?? would have to pony up the money on a regular basis. Therein lies the rub.

[xennex81]

I just want to say that a constructive approach that goes in line with what Shuttleworth wants (a profitable Canonical) is probably best. I see opportunity I must say for a commercial Kubuntu. I think if copies of Kubuntu were actually sold it would create great incentives to make it even better.

There is a kind of midground and there are many diverse strategies you could use to mold the free with the paid-for. It all involves I believe a kind of letting-go. For instance, Bandcamp is in my view pretty successful in marrying sales to "pay what you want" which is a common choice for artists to make. You can buy an album for $1 but if you want to pay $10, that's also possible. Radiohead experimented with that also, I do not know the results of those experiments.

I would seriously consider making it a $1 purchase and either let it go at that or allow the user to pay more if wanted. In Bandcamp all your purchases remain registered. You can always return to a download link. I'm wondering if such a platform even exists for software.

Seen in that light, maybe Shuttleworth's supposed plans suddenly seem like an opportunity, rather than a threat.

[GreyGeek]

There is a history of economic models for Linux distros. Some successful, some not. DisroWatch.com is full of examples of both kinds.
However, Ubuntu became the most successful because SABDLF paid to send distros anywhere in the world, he paid for advertising, and he paid developers. Well over $100M of his own money. I know of no other distros that have done that.

If B-S continues to pay developers and picks up server and Internet expenses then K?? can continue on, otherwise it will be problematic.

[SteveRiley]

Emerge Open, a UK firm, offers paid support for Kubuntu. Profits are returned to the Kubuntu project.

http://kubuntu.emerge-open.com/buy

[GreyGeek]

Interesting!
Never knew that!
£80/hr or £500/day. Wonder how much profit is on those rates.?

[InsideJob]

Yes, yes, profits. Learn to serve the corporate entities. All that's good and holy trickles down from them.

[Qqmike]

£80/hr or £500/day. Wonder how much profit is on those rates.?

As we all know, profit is an arithmetic calculation: gross revenue minus costs (direct + indirect). In theory, they could pay themselves 60 of the 80 and call it professional salaries/fees. Let's hope they are nice guys, though, and not CPAs or lawyers.

[SteveRiley]

Yes, yes, profits. Learn to serve the corporate entities. All that's good and holy trickles down from them.

So do you, like, have a job where you make money?

[humufr]

I think if copies of Kubuntu were actually sold it would create great incentives to make it even better.

Personally I will not trust Canonical from now on to anything related to Kubuntu or any other ubuntu derivative. I could have buy (and I gave money to kubuntu) before but not anymore. But it doesn’t matter too much, I am afraid that a very small amount of people will still be motivated to work on KDE packaging for ubuntu so this distribution will die pretty soon.No packagers, no distribution, no community.

[GreyGeek]

But it doesn’t matter too much, I am afraid that a very small amount of people will still be motivated to work on KDE packaging for ubuntu so this distribution will die pretty soon.No packagers, no distribution, no community.

A "very small amount of people" is all that ever worked on Kubuntu. I highly doubt it will die. It may transform itself into another brand with a Debian base, but I believe that would be a good thing. I also believe that SABDFL will never achieve the market penetration he is hoping for and he will close Canonical and turn Ubuntu loose for anyone else to adopt. Probably by the end of 2017.