Would an optional "pay what you want" for Ubuntu conflict with FLOSS?

[Starks]

It worked for Radiohead as listeners went to download "In Rainbows" en masse. Could it work for Canonical?

[JDShu]

not with FLOSS

[andamaru]

yep, that would be perfectly legal

[blueshiftoverwatch]

I think people would get annoyed if they installed the OS and were hit with "give us money" ads though. Especially since no other Linux distro does it. Unless it only came up once, the first time you booted up the OS after install. Canonical is a for profit private company. So I don't really see why anyone should donate anything to them. If you want to buy a Ubuntu tshirt, okay. But donating to them when there are so many other causes that are non-profit and don't have a source of revenue seems like a better way to give away your money.

[Starks]

I think people would get annoyed if they installed the OS and were hit with "give us money" ads though. Especially since no other Linux distro does it. Unless it only came up once, the first time you booted up the OS after install. Canonical is a for profit private company. So I don't really see why anyone should donate anything to them. If you want to buy a Ubuntu tshirt, okay. But donating to them when there are so many other causes that are non-profit and don't have a source of revenue seems like a better way to give away your money.
You completely missed the point of my post. The pay option would occur before Ubuntu is even downloaded.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

You completely missed the point of my post. The pay option would occur before Ubuntu is even downloaded.
You never specified in your post where the donation ad would be located. I just assumed you meant when you first booted up the OS.

[Starks]

Whatever. I assumed you'd infer that from my use of Radiohead as an example.

[staf0048]

It could work, but I think Canonical is trying to stay away from having a "Donations" button on their site. I see them trying to compete with companies such as Red Hat or Novell, except that their community driven OS is the main platform they use vs. having seperate community and business OS's. They're trying to find the market value of FOSS that can drive business, such as paid support for example. In my opinion, asking for donations cheapens the product somehow, like it can't survive on it's own merit.

If you support Ubuntu, then support it with your $$ by purchasing CDs/DVDs and either hoard them, or better yet, give them away to spread the word. Or buy a subscription for paid support instead of relying on the forums. What ever you find valuable, but it's up to Canoncial to figure out how it can keep it's business afloat without donations. IMHO.

[ticopelp]

Whatever. I assumed you'd infer that from my use of Radiohead as an example.

A poor assumption to make. Your original point simply wasn't very clear.

That said, I would be fine with it, and would probably be more inclined to donate if such a system were in place. I get enough utility from Ubuntu to be more than happy paying some money for it.

It does have some implementation problems, like how to implement this for users who are using dist-upgrade through the terminal and so forth.

[VastOne]

Whatever. I assumed you'd infer that from my use of Radiohead as an example.

I hope you are not assuming that everyone on the planet knows Radiohead?

And I agree with Ticopelp....

[juancarlospaco]

Actually... if go and Pay anything you want for Ubuntu no one is gonna stop you...
:)

[saulgoode]

Selling a distro would not conflict with the Free Software philosophy, as long as the source code is available at no cost (or rather, minimal cost to cover distribution expenses). Personally, I have no interest in a distro which does not also offer a compiled version for free -- though this is not a requirement for a project to be considered Free Software (in such a case, however, the compiled version itself would not be considered Free Software).

While not precisely "pay what you want", Patryk Volkerding has been selling Slackware for over sixteen years, and yet he also provides it for free -- and permits anyone to make and share copies for free. Those who don't wish to pay the full asking price aren't offered the option of setting their own price, but they can certainly make a donation in any amount deemed appropriate after obtaining a free copy.

For Ubuntu to similarly request payment for a copy of its software, while still offering a free version, would not be violating the principles of Free Software, nor would it violate anything that has been promised to the contributors of the project. In fact, such sales already takes place (http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=537&osCsid=c9b750def142dc15997fa926f23c7bdf) (though the asking price is quite minimal).

[shreepads]

You completely missed the point of my post. The pay option would occur before Ubuntu is even downloaded.

You sir are a modern day Nostradamus...

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/10/canonical-asks-desktop-users-to-pay-what-you-think-ubuntu-is-worth

I wish they would add options to actually get community feedback before imposing ****... Or allow people to vote out guff like that stupid global menu bar in Unity...

[overdrank]

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5451/necromancing.jpg
From the Ubuntu Forums Code of Conduct (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy).

If a post is older than a year or so and hasn't had a new reply in that time, instead of replying to it, create a new thread. In the software world, a lot can change in a very short time, and doing things this way makes it more likely that you will find the best information. You may link to the original discussion in the new thread if you think it may be helpful.
Thread closed.