|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
If Canonical wants to work with - for example - Dell to distribute
Canonical on Dell hardware.... let them.
You also have to consider
the case where a third party distributor (neither Dell nor Canonical) uses a
Dell device and puts Ubuntu on it. We are after all talking about a device
manufactured for Windows use but repurposed for Linux.
What does
that have to do with Dell doing something which breaches a license (any license,
FLOSS or proprietary) and Canonical being responsible?
I didn't
suggest Canonical was legally responsible for what it's distributors do. Quite
the opposite. I said that Canonical would not be relieved that their
distributors would have to deal with it.
Think of it from Canonical's
viewpoint. They want devices with Ubuntu in it, so they don't want distributors
to worry about being sued.
And now that FSF has just put it in writing
that it would be the distributor's (and not Canonical's) problem, all the more
reason for Canonical not to take the FSF's suggested path -- if they want
distributors to pick Ubuntu. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
