[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch wiki being moved

From: Thomas Lord
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch wiki being moved
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:47:30 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313)

Thank you David.  Your correction is quite welcome
and the historic details are accurate, I think.  So good
job.   I apologize, partially, for blaming Canonical.

Canonical's acquisition of the domain name and
custody of the wiki content was an opportunity
for Canonical to revisit policy and move to implement
needed corrections.   In that limited sense I think that
Canonical is still culpable.  This is a much weaker
claim than the complaint you, David, are replying to.

Let's be absolutely clear, though, that the problem
was not created in the first place by Canonical
and that my initial claim -- though made in good
faith -- was simply wrong.

I don't mean to be obsequious or to overlook what
I personally consider to be Canonical's "sins" but --
to atone for my sin of getting history wrong -- let
me say that I don't think Canonical is completely evil
and that I do think they may be and can be doing some
good in the world.   By all reports, Ubuntu is at least
pretty good and pretty interesting.   Their business
model -- while not as primed for profit making as I
think it could be -- does seem to honor software
freedom (better even, than some competing commercial
distros, IMO).   I am personally very frustrated with them
because I think their employees (agents) pretty much
screwed me at very points and because I thought the
offer Mark once made to me was pretty shoddy.   Seeing
something, like Canonical, that is potentially very good --
I get pissed off when that thing screws up in ways that I
think are completely avoidable.   But -- Canonical
is interesting, *potentially* progressive, and may add
up to some good in the world.

Thank you, again, David,

David Allouche wrote:
Thomas Lord wrote:
The V2-only wiki status is unfortunate and I'd add it to the
list of what I think are Canonical's gratuitous
`screw you' behavior visited upon the GNU Arch project.

You would be mistaken.

The GPLv2 policy of the wiki was set by James Blackwell, well before he
ever heard of Canonical. We argued the licensing on IRC and the
discussion ended as he said essentially "I'm hosting this wiki on my
machine out my pocket money, I get to choose the license".

The initial wiki announcement:

At this point, there was no Canonical (by this name or any other).

The message where James reaffirmed GPLv2-only licensing:

James Blackwell was initially contacted by Canonical in August 2004.

QED, Canonical had exactly zero influence on this licensing policy.

People who have been around and paying attention long enough know that
you had interpersonal issues with James, predating his involvement with
Canonical by a long stretch. Attributing these issues to the company is


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]