Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Tue 1st Mar 2011 18:32 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "The conflict between Banshee and Canonical over what should be done with Banshee's Amazon Store revenue stream, while it was finally resolved, was not Ubuntu's most shining moment. At the matter's conclusion, Banshee developers were not happy with the results. This is not how open-source communities should work together and no one knows that better than Mark Shuttleworth, Canonical, Ubuntu's parent company, who wrote, "We made some mistakes in our handling of the discussion around revenue share with the Banshee team.""
Thread beginning with comment 464546
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Hypocrisy
by flypig on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 17:18 UTC in reply to "Hypocrisy"
Member since:

It's not like Canonical didn't know upfront that they were investing money and efforts into building a free OS offering. They were well aware of the costs and the lack of revenue.


...they want to either levy a 75% tax on it or, in case Banshee devs don't agree with that revenue sharing scheme, disable the revenue-providing section of the code.

Isn't this exactly the problem: that this argument can be used in reverse. The Banshee developers have chosen to release their code under an MIT/X11 licence, so they can't really complain if someone takes their code and uses it however they want (within the restrictions of the licence). It's presumably not like the Banshee team didn't know what they were getting in to.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the strong ethical argument that says the Banshee team deserve to get something back for their efforts. It's just they've explicitly made clear (in their licence) that they don't mind people taking this revenue instead. Please do correct me if I'm wrong though.

Any argument that says the Banshee team deserve revenue for their effort surely applies to anyone who adds to the value chain that ends with someone downloading a track? If I'm understanding Mark Shuttleworth's argument, he says this now includes Canonical.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Hypocrisy
by vodoomoth on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 19:13 in reply to "RE: Hypocrisy"
vodoomoth Member since:

Of course, you are totally right; that's a kind of freedom that free software allows. Canonical could perfectly do what they wanted without asking permission from anyone.

The thing is they are doing it in a way that amounts (in my eyes) to basically forcing the Banshee team to condone what they (Canonical) knew would have cost them brownie points if they did it behind closed doors. It might have caused even more brouhaha than what has been caused by that dispute. Looks like they're aiming for a "we did that thing you think is ethically wrong but hey, they agreed!". That's weird. There was an apparently less enticing and effective third option for Canonical: leave the Banshee source code alone.

Reply Parent Score: 3