Canonical's updated licensing terms for Ubuntu GNU/Linux
FSF
have published a statement on Canonical's updated licensing terms for
Ubuntu GNU/Linux.
The highlight is a “trump clause” which
effectively reverses the default situation of the Canonical's policy,
and mandates that when Canonical, Ltd.'s policy contradicts something
that the GPL requires, or prohibits something that the GPL allows, the
rights granted in the GPL shall prevail. A direct consequence, for
example, is that redistributors are relieved of the overhead to
recompile the source code covered under GPL to create their own
binaries; GPL simply requires that you pass along source code that
successfully can be recompiled into binaries.
While this change handles the situation for works covered by the GPL, it
does not help works covered by lax permissive licenses (such as the X11
license) that do allow such additional restrictions.
This is yet another success story which explains how choosing copyleft
licenses like the GPL prevents others from imposing (arbitrary)
restrictions on users.
References:-
[1] Official
Statement from FSF.
[2] Official
Statement from Canonical, Ltd.
And don't forget of Bradley Kuhn: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2015/07/15/ubuntu-ip-policy.html
I heard about this from the Free Software Supporter mailing list.
"Canonical's requirement that users recompile Ubuntu packages from source code"
This sounds like a big issue for Trisquel. AFAIK Trisquel does not compile from source except for the modified packages.
"This sounds like a big issue for Trisquel."
Not at all.
"AFAIK Trisquel does not compile from source except for the modified packages."
That will need to change so as to be able to escape the proprietary license Canonical applies to the binaries. However, most packages are only built once and never updated per release, so it is not terrible. The bigger deal would be if Canonical were to take the next logical step with their "proprietary license on things that aren't copylefted" policy and stop providing source, or provide it under the same un-free license as the binaries are. For this reason it is important for people to fight against Canonical's policy as it exists now, to prevent it from getting any worse. I see that as the primary purpose of the announcements made by the FSF & Conservancy: To call attention to this and hopefully encourage people to express their concern and dissatisfaction over this matter. Before Canonical takes it even further.
Great note, jxself.
Added to that, patent clause in Canonical's current policy needs to be bit more polished. Canonical should adopt defensive use of patents; not to initiate litigation suits against (re)distributors for minor/trivial violations.
Further, Canonical's trademark policy should be transparent; The (re)distributors should be well guided as to where and when trademarks needs to be removed to comply with the trademark policy.
It is necessary that free software developers, users and FSF, in particular should keep the doors of communication open with Canonical; This is the only way to win back our rights for free software.