Linux - NewsThis forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Everything you stated is correct but in Australia, and possibly other countries let alone other Common Law jurisdictions, people are entitled to moral rights for IT related material. The fact that Canonical places that clause in the CLA, considering they say it is subject to the laws of England and not other Common Law jurisdictions, says to me this is a real legal minefield and they are hedging their bets. Common Law jurisdictions can, and do, use precedents set in other Common Law jurisdictions when litigation is undertaken (this is in a broad sense of Common Law). If Canonical had no chance of having a case to answer for there would be no need at all for the clause requiring the contributor gives up their morals rights.
This makes sense. I understand it that Canconical, as a company based in UK, follows UK laws (which makes perfect sense to me). The moral rights clause is simply "just so you know" thing in case you contribute from coutry where these apply and you therefore take them for granted. But from the UK law perspective, you lose exactly nothing with this clause. There are no moral rights for programs in UK and i believe that Canonical just wants to make clear that your contribution follows the UK law - for the possibility of any legal claim someone raises against them.
Location: Zona Leste, Sao Paulo, Brazil, South America, Alpha Quadrant, Milk Way
Distribution: Slackware 14.0
Posts: 140
Rep:
Just a question.
Anyone has an example (a real one, with link please) of contributor claiming Canonical got his free soft and sold it making lots of money, and also forced the developer to stop using it in other projects?
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by everal
Just a question.
Anyone has an example (a real one, with link please) of contributor claiming Canonical got his free soft and sold it making lots of money, and also forced the developer to stop using it in other projects?
As has been pointed out they can't stop you from using your own material in other projects, you do indeed retain copyright over it if you keep it (keep the code that is). As for a link to an actual case where someone has claimed Canonical has used their material and made money from it there are none (yet) but that does not mean Canonical has not done this.
This makes sense. I understand it that Canconical, as a company based in UK, follows UK laws (which makes perfect sense to me).
Are British laws applicable on The Isle of Man? I ask, because Shuttleworth chose that tax haven as his place of residence. I therefore assume, but do not know, that his Canonical is also based there, not in the U.K. Which brings me back to my question. Do British laws apply? Is anyone here familiar with The Isle of Man and can clarify this question?
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
While the Isle of Man is not part of the UK they do use the British Police and do use British Laws as well as their own. Regardless of that the agreement specifically states it is "governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England" in Section 6.1
Location: Zona Leste, Sao Paulo, Brazil, South America, Alpha Quadrant, Milk Way
Distribution: Slackware 14.0
Posts: 140
Rep:
Just to be clear k3lt01, Canonical must pay now for something that they may (or may not) do in the future? I liked ReiserFS. The guy killed his wife. He is in jail. The other guy from Canonical shouldf be in jail too? You know, maybe he will also kill his wife... better get him before...
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by everal
Just to be clear k3lt01, Canonical must pay now for something that they may (or may not) do in the future? I liked ReiserFS. The guy killed his wife. He is in jail. The other guy from Canonical shouldf be in jail too? You know, maybe he will also kill his wife... better get him before...
That is not clear at all. How does Canonical pay for that? I don't know the details of that story so you'll have to fill me in how a Canonical employee should be in gaol for something some other person did.
Location: Zona Leste, Sao Paulo, Brazil, South America, Alpha Quadrant, Milk Way
Distribution: Slackware 14.0
Posts: 140
Rep:
It is an analogy. A man can kill his wife. The owner of Canonical is a man. So he can kill his wife.
Then we need to enjail him BEFORE that, of course!
It is like: they can do bad things to your code, "No, there is not a single case", but since they can, we should distrust them just like if they have it already done...
It is an analogy. A man can kill his wife. The owner of Canonical is a man. So he can kill his wife.
Then we need to enjail him BEFORE that, of course!
It is like: they can do bad things to your code, "No, there is not a single case", but since they can, we should distrust them just like if they have it already done...
What, you mean Minority Report-style? Is this an irony? I'm not really sure here...
"since they can..." = FSF can too, should we distrust them? No, of course not, we are decided they are the good guys (this is an irony).
I'm not sure what he is taking about. Is ReiserFS somehow tainted by the it's murdering creator ? A secret code buried within that makes people who use it into murderers ? The beginnings of a new slasher movie ?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.