PDA

View Full Version : Canonical & Banshee Agree to Disagree



Hippytaff
February 25th, 2011, 12:39 AM
Whats this about third party arrangements between ubuntu and banshee (mono based) and profit's for canonical?...I must applaud canonical for their market awareness!

Tibuda
February 25th, 2011, 12:46 AM
Inb4 Mono flamewar.

Are you talking about the revenue Canonical will get from both UbuntuOne store and Amazon store in Banshee?

Hippytaff
February 25th, 2011, 12:56 AM
yeah...surely it is a good thing...would this not bring linux to the masses, but (apparently...according to some) this is not so good!? is it good?

I'm new to the whole GPL and other (free) licensing agreements

Tibuda
February 25th, 2011, 01:39 AM
The "masses" have nothing to do with this.

Yes, it is a good thing for people to be able to easily purchase music, but Canonical is getting a high share of the revenue. That's what people are concerned. I don't really care.

cariboo
February 25th, 2011, 01:55 AM
Here's a quote from Jono Bacon's blog:


Thanks again for the call, your participation and understanding is very much appreciated. As discussed, I wanted to follow up with the plan I outlined on the call – and reiterate my apologies and responsibility for a situation that has resulted in the worst outcome for everyone, including putting the Banshee team in an awkward position. As such:
In Ubuntu 11.04, Banshee will have both the AmazonMP3 and Ubuntu One music stores turned on by default.
We will contribute 25% of the revenue from the AmazonMP3 store to the GNOME Foundation.
We will also also start contributing 25% of revenue from the Ubuntu One Music Store on both Banshee and Rhythmbox, to the GNOME Foundation.
Recognizing that it is important to not only bring choice to Ubuntu users, but to also generate revenue to continue our investment in Ubuntu, and to ensure we can contribute effectively to the GNOME Foundation – we believe this plan fairly addresses the interests of all parties.


Linky (http://www.jonobacon.org/2011/02/24/banshee-in-natty-to-ship-multiple-stores-and-contribute-to-gnome-foundation/)

wojox
February 25th, 2011, 10:59 AM
I knew they should have stuck with Rhythmbox (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/canonical-banshee-agree-to-disagree/8345)

Spice Weasel
February 25th, 2011, 11:01 AM
Wow, Canonical are being evil here. Not good.

smellyman
February 25th, 2011, 11:11 AM
Yes. this is not cool.

rolnics
February 25th, 2011, 11:16 AM
I haven't been following this, what does it mean? Apart from troubled waters ahead.....

DoubleClicker
February 25th, 2011, 11:57 AM
context?

clanky
February 25th, 2011, 01:25 PM
Canonical should be hanging their heads in shame, if Microsoft forced a software vendor into an arrangement like this they would (rightly) be pilloried by the FOSS community.

I can understand Canonical taking some kind of cut, but come on.

So much for open respect.

Ozor Mox
February 25th, 2011, 01:47 PM
Canonical should be hanging their heads in shame, if Microsoft forced a software vendor into an arrangement like this they would (rightly) be pilloried by the FOSS community.

I can understand Canonical taking some kind of cut, but come on.

So much for open respect.

Are Banshee really being forced into this? I mean, if they don't like Canonical's terms, can't they just say "ok fine, don't include our project then" and then Canonical will have to go back to Rhythmbox or other alternatives. Presumably they are going along with it because 25% of UbuntuOne Music Store and 25% of Banshee's Amazon thing going towards GNOME Foundation must be more than what Banshee would otherwise have contributed giving 100%?

I understand that people think the principle of it is a bit wrong, but I don't get the Banshee were forced part of it.

Dragonbite
February 25th, 2011, 02:58 PM
So instead of most of the money made from Amazon with Banshee going to GNOME, it's going into Canonical's pockets.

In return a percentage of the revenue from UbuntuOne Music Store will be directed towards GNOME as well.

I don't know about you, but I do not suspect Amazon's and the UbuntuOne sales are equal.

They were talking before of shipping Banshee with UbuntuOne Music Store plug-in installed and the Amazon not being installed. I would go with this.

Recent actions looks more like a corporate strong-arm, that Canonical knows it has power and is going to exert it to get their way.

I seriously hope this is only business (good or bad), and not a "Gnome spited us, so we don't want our distro helping them, we want the money ourself!" That second way of thinking, while can be valid, is unprofessional and unsympathetic to the tenuous relationship of distro and community.

Simian Man
February 25th, 2011, 03:13 PM
¢anoni¢al is at it again!

wrtpeeps
February 25th, 2011, 03:26 PM
What a shock, a company seeks to maximise its revenue streams. Who's surprised?

NightwishFan
February 25th, 2011, 03:27 PM
I for one will wait to see what gnomeuser has to say about this (if anything). Otherwise I am not worried about it.

Zomby Woof
February 25th, 2011, 03:30 PM
Let the users decide. If the funding, or lack of funding, disturb you then choose a different application. Unfortunately this is the sort of thing that happens when $$$ is involved.

Tristam Green
February 25th, 2011, 03:35 PM
What a shock, a company seeks to maximise its revenue streams. Who's surprised?

Lots..of..people..evidently? Or have you not read this thread, or other blogs about this action?

wrtpeeps
February 25th, 2011, 03:37 PM
Lots..of..people..evidently? Or have you not read this thread, or other blogs about this action?

I'm just saying, why are people surprised that a company is seeking to maximise it's revenue? That's what companies do, that's the point.

NCLI
February 25th, 2011, 03:40 PM
Wow, Canonical are being evil here. Not good.
They're distributing a product as default in the most popular linux distro, while allowing the original provider(the Banshee team) to donate 25% of the revenue it makes from the Amazon/UbuntuOne store to Gnome.

I don't see how that is evil. Since the application is open source, they could've just made it so that 100% of the profit went to themselves.

So instead of most of the money made from Amazon with Banshee going to GNOME, it's going into Canonical's pockets.

In return a percentage of the revenue from UbuntuOne Music Store will be directed towards GNOME as well.

I don't know about you, but I do not suspect Amazon's and the UbuntuOne sales are equal.
You forget to take into account that Banshee, as the new default music player in Ubuntu, will most likely have way more customers buy music through it. I'd expect that number to swell so much that those 25% will be more than the 100% they got before.

If it doesn't, this was a bad deal for Banshee, sure, but we don't know yet.


They were talking before of shipping Banshee with UbuntuOne Music Store plug-in installed and the Amazon not being installed. I would go with this.
That would mean that the Gnome foundation got 0% of the revenue, how is that an improvement?


Recent actions looks more like a corporate strong-arm, that Canonical knows it has power and is going to exert it to get their way.
Again, this is open source software. Canonical was well within their right to simply rip out the Amazon plugin(Or replace it with their own Amazon plugin) and get 100% of the revenue.

Instead, they sad down with the Banshee developers and actually gave them 25% of the revenue.


I seriously hope this is only business (good or bad), and not a "Gnome spited us, so we don't want our distro helping them, we want the money ourself!" That second way of thinking, while can be valid, is unprofessional and unsympathetic to the tenuous relationship of distro and community.
I sincerely doubt that, and I hope you have some source or evidence to back up your conspiracy theory.

The facts are these: Developers need to eat, and Canonical needs to make money. It would be crazy to leave the plugin for an arguably superior service(Amazon) in place in the default music player, since it would seriously dilute their income stream.
This deal gets Banshee more users, and still lets them donate a substantial amount of the revenue to the Gnome foundation.

fuduntu
February 25th, 2011, 03:52 PM
The facts are these: Developers need to eat, and Canonical needs to make money. It would be crazy to leave the plugin for an arguably superior service(Amazon) in place in the default music player, since it would seriously dilute their income stream.
This deal gets Banshee more users, and still lets them donate a substantial amount of the revenue to the Gnome foundation.

What about GNOME and Banshee developers though? They do a lot more of the hard work than Canonical does. I don't think anyone would have had a problem with Canonical taking 25% and giving 75% to Banshee / GNOME but taking 75% of a cut while putting in 1% of the work into the products that they are taking from is morally wrong.

Like you said, it is arguably a superior service, Canonical should give a lot more back to help ensure that it remains a superior service.

NCLI
February 25th, 2011, 03:57 PM
What about GNOME and Banshee developers though? They do a lot more of the hard work than Canonical does. I don't think anyone would have had a problem with Canonical taking 25% and giving 75% to Banshee / GNOME but taking 75% of a cut while putting in 1% of the work into the products that they are taking from is morally wrong.
While Canonical doesn't do much work on Banshee itself, what it offers is a nice package for Banshee to be distributed in. Sure, all of us here have heard of Banshee, but many Ubuntu users haven't, and are just using Rythmbox. Being default in the biggest linux distro is invaluable to Banshee.


Like you said, it is arguably a superior service, Canonical should give a lot more back to help ensure that it remains a superior service.
I was talking about Amazon vs. 7Digital.

fuduntu
February 25th, 2011, 04:08 PM
While Canonical doesn't do much work on Banshee itself, what it offers is a nice package for Banshee to be distributed in. Sure, all of us here have heard of Banshee, but many Ubuntu users haven't, and are just using Rythmbox. Being default in the biggest linux distro is invaluable to Banshee.


I was talking about Amazon vs. 7Digital.

Nice packaging doesn't justify a 75% take. Packing is trivial, and takes a few short minutes at most. Integration as a default also doesn't justify it, the distribution having a larger amount of the Linux desktop market doesn't automatically grant it the right to take a bigger cut.

75% to the community and 25% to Canonical would be fair. I doubt there would be a single complaint.

sydbat
February 25th, 2011, 04:16 PM
Are Banshee really being forced into this? I mean, if they don't like Canonical's terms, can't they just say "ok fine, don't include our project then" and then Canonical will have to go back to Rhythmbox or other alternatives. Presumably they are going along with it because 25% of UbuntuOne Music Store and 25% of Banshee's Amazon thing going towards GNOME Foundation must be more than what Banshee would otherwise have contributed giving 100%?

I understand that people think the principle of it is a bit wrong, but I don't get the Banshee were forced part of it.From what I understand, if the Banshee team said "nope, don't think so", Canonical could just go get the source, change a couple of minor non-essential things, and re-brand the same player with whatever name they choose (like Bunshee). Then they wouldn't have to give money to anyone.

Of course, the Banshee team agreed to the terms laid out, so they get some $$...and Gnome gets some $$...and Canonical gets the most $$. Everyone involved in the business end of things seems fine with this. It is those not involved at all that are getting upset and angry over something they have no say in.

So, if people do not like what this deal represents (in some eyes, all Apple-y or Microsoft-y), don't use Banshee to buy your music at the specified online stores. That way, no one gets any $$ and Canonical gets the message.

My $.0000003

PS. clanky - every time I am reading your posts, out of the corner of my eye, your avatar looks like a weird pelican. I like it.

ErikNJ
February 25th, 2011, 04:30 PM
I will await to see how/if Canonical "damage control" responds this this one. I am all for Canonical taking a cut but they've got a lot of explaining to do for me to understand how 75% is fair.

RiceMonster
February 25th, 2011, 04:49 PM
This attitude that Banshee should be grateful that Ubuntu is distributing it is extremely arrogant, in my opinion.

Lucretius
February 25th, 2011, 05:17 PM
at the end of the day Canonical needs to be financially viable. They will look at all sorts of ways to do this otherwise they will fail and Ubuntu will be no more.

fuduntu
February 25th, 2011, 05:21 PM
at the end of the day Canonical needs to be financially viable. They will look at all sorts of ways to do this otherwise they will fail and Ubuntu will be no more.

What would happen if GNOME (a significant part of the foundation of Ubuntu) was no longer financially viable?

RedHat figured out how to be financially viable while contributing more to OSS than everyone else, it doesn't make sense that Canonical can't.

scouser73
February 25th, 2011, 05:21 PM
at the end of the day Canonical needs to be financially viable. They will look at all sorts of ways to do this otherwise they will fail and Ubuntu will be no more.

I am in 100% agreement with you, Canonical can't sustain Ubuntu without funding.

castrojo
February 25th, 2011, 05:23 PM
What would happen if GNOME (a significant part of the foundation of Ubuntu) was no longer financially viable?

Canonical is a member of the GNOME Advisory Board and has spent tens of thousands of dollars supporting GNOME over the years.

NightwishFan
February 25th, 2011, 05:24 PM
I am inclined to agree sydbat. I really do not see the unfairness in this, especially if all the heads are agreeable, though I am not informed of the details. Since I do not buy online music, I have no stake in this either way.

LowSky
February 25th, 2011, 05:25 PM
Lets not forget that Canonical is a business and Amazon is a direct competitor to the Ubuntu Store. Isn't the move to Banshee alone going to upset purists who hate mono? Personally I love its moving onto Banshee, if Canonical really cared they could make Banshee the default use the Ubuntu store plug-in and disable Amazon's plug-in, its already possible. See I included a screenshot.

But lets not forget Ubuntu is moving away from many other normal Linux distro choices. They are moving from OpenOffice to LibreOffice (another project of Novell), from X11 to Wayland, Unity instead of GNOME Shell.

fuduntu
February 25th, 2011, 05:37 PM
Canonical is a member of the GNOME Advisory Board and has spent tens of thousands of dollars supporting GNOME over the years.

Fair enough, however this still doesn't justify a 75% take.

Lucretius
February 25th, 2011, 05:39 PM
as a business you need to try new things and experiment. What works for one entity may not work for another.

I commend canonical for trying something new. Ubuntu itself is an experiment and I hope it succeeds.

clanky
February 25th, 2011, 06:01 PM
PS. clanky - every time I am reading your posts, out of the corner of my eye, your avatar looks like a weird pelican. I like it.

It is a pelican, what are you talking about.

The problem with this is that it will make people think twice about developing open source software. When you develop something and are then put in a position where you either give away 75% of your income or just have someone else take your source code and re-release it with a few minor changes then the next time you develop you are going to think twice.

I also don't like the hypocrisy whereby if MS or Apple did this they would be evil, but because Canonical are doing it then it is somehow OK.

RiceMonster
February 25th, 2011, 06:47 PM
if they don't like Canonical's terms, can't they just say "ok fine, don't include our project then" and then Canonical will have to go back to Rhythmbox or other alternatives.

They can say that if they want, but Canonical won't have to stop including their project.


Of course, the Banshee team agreed to the terms laid out, so they get some $$...and Gnome gets some $$...and Canonical gets the most $$. Everyone involved in the business end of things seems fine with this. It is those not involved at all that are getting upset and angry over something they have no say in.

Actually, Canonical originally approached the Banshee team (http://gburt.blogspot.com/2011/02/banshee-supporting-gnome-on-ubuntu.html) with this option, and they voted against it. Then Canonical went and did it anyway. So why did Canonical approach them in the first place?

Ozor Mox
February 25th, 2011, 06:55 PM
They can say that if they want, but Canonical won't have to stop including their project.

Well no, but then nor can they stop anyone from doing anything they want with the software within the terms of the licence (GPL I assume). I realise I'm ignoring the argument of whether what Canonical are doing is fair or moral, but it seems strange that someone would licence their software in such a way that they then have a problem with how it is later used. It's like those folks that are making software under the BSD licence, and then getting angry when it gets incorporated in proprietary or GPL software. Err, hello? You chose that licence!

Again, I'm ignoring the moral/ethical side of this here, I guess that's where the problem lies anyway.

cariboo
February 25th, 2011, 07:21 PM
I don't agree with the way Canonical went about this, but isn't Ubuntu the 1000lb gorilla in the linux market? 25% of sales is a lot more than the 100% the Gnome foundation would get from most other distributions?

Edit: Merged two threads on the same subject

JDShu
February 25th, 2011, 07:38 PM
ooo finally something interesting...


This attitude that Banshee should be grateful that Ubuntu is distributing it is extremely arrogant, in my opinion.

Well, why does somebody write open source software? One of the reasons is so that other people will use it. And Ubuntu is, for better of for worse, the most popular Linux desktop distribution, which allows them to reach a larger audience. So yes, if I was the developer for Banshee, I would be pretty grateful.

On whether Canonical is being evil, I'm not willing to make a judgement call here. I think the miscommunication in the beginning really messed things up for Canonical. After it was blogged that Canonical was willing to make things unchanged for Banshee, it looks a lot like they backtracked on their promise. I do understand Canonical's decision here in face of their constraints, although as usual a bigger upstream presence would go a long way towards increasing their legitimacy.

JDShu
February 25th, 2011, 07:57 PM
Also, we can look at it from a rational actors perspective. Even if Canonical took 99.99% of the the money, the money to Banshee increases, because Banshee was not offered by default on Ubuntu in the first place until now.

Copper Bezel
February 25th, 2011, 08:05 PM
Fair enough, however this still doesn't justify a 75% take.

It's an unusual situation even if this was about commercial software. It's hard to talk about justifications without any real precedent. Admittedly, I don't like that Apple forces its music store on its users, and this isn't far from that model - and certainly the percentages don't sound fair to common sense, but Ubuntu is delivering customers to the Banshee store, or a quarter of one apiece, anyway.

Given the Banshee team's statement on this, it does seem terribly awkward. Honestly, though, I'm somewhat happy to see that Canonical is at least acknowledging that Amazon's service is a superior one to whatever Ubuntu One uses (did someone say 7Digital?) At least they're making the effort to deliver the better service even if it isn't under their brand, and when you think of it that way, taking a kind of cut in doing so (which will be entirely nullified by the inevitably increased traffic, naturally.)

We'll really be talking Apple when Canonical makes Amazon's own mp3 downloader application stop running on Ubuntu. = P (And I'll switch distros, frankly, but I don't think we have to worry about that happening anytime soon.)

sydbat
February 25th, 2011, 08:10 PM
Fair enough, however this still doesn't justify a 75% take.Would 50-50 be better? I only ask because someone was going to make some money on this. What the percentages should be is the real question.


Actually, Canonical originally approached the Banshee team (http://gburt.blogspot.com/2011/02/banshee-supporting-gnome-on-ubuntu.html) with this option, and they voted against it. Then Canonical went and did it anyway. So why did Canonical approach them in the first place?Thank you for clarifying that. My guess is they didn't want to look like the big bad corporation...even though this is how they are looking right now.

As clanky said - "I also don't like the hypocrisy whereby if MS or Apple did this they would be evil, but because Canonical are doing it then it is somehow OK."

fuduntu
February 25th, 2011, 08:21 PM
Would 50-50 be better? I only ask because someone was going to make some money on this. What the percentages should be is the real question.


A fair number would be one that the Banshee team negotiated. This wasn't really a negotiation though, more of a strong arm move by Canonical IMHO.

I will be including Banshee in Fuduntu 15 by default because I think that the Amazon integration is fantastic, but the ID will remain configured to allow 100% to go to Banshee since I believe it is unethical to take money from Banshee simply because I can.

That's my take. :D

Captain Smiley Pants
February 25th, 2011, 08:22 PM
What a shock, a company seeks to maximise its revenue streams. Who's surprised?
I'm sure if MS did this, you would be crapping your pants in anger.

JDShu
February 25th, 2011, 08:27 PM
I'm sure if MS did this, you would be crapping your pants in anger.

Yeah, and you'd be defending them. So what?

Captain Smiley Pants
February 25th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Yeah, and you'd be defending them. So what?
I'm just pointing out how some members have double standards.

JDShu
February 25th, 2011, 08:55 PM
I'm just pointing out how some members have double standards.

Hehe many people do :)

I just don't think its a valid point for this topic, which I find very interesting.

That said, what if MS really did do this? IMO Banshee certainly would benefit from such an arrangement. Just like now, people might not consider it fair, but I don't think the net benefit is bad at all.

Dragonbite
February 25th, 2011, 09:18 PM
So everybody should download Banshee NOW, and buy all the music they can want through Amazon so GNOME gets all of the money!

Paqman
February 25th, 2011, 09:52 PM
75/25 seems fair to me. Ubuntu shipping Banshee as the default will massively increase the install base of Banshee, so both Banshee and Canonical stand to gain.

ELD
February 25th, 2011, 09:56 PM
So much bitching and moaning, they wouldn't get anything at all if Ubuntu didn't use them.

I agree with what was said before, they are a company and they need to make money.

We get a decent product from them for free, so sue them for trying to sustain themselves for the freedom we get!

Dragonbite
February 25th, 2011, 10:08 PM
Banshee is already making some money with people that install Banshee on their own, or different distributions. It is already the default for openSUSE Gnome installations.

Plus it stands to grow as a Windows version is getting closer and closer to release (considered alpha-quality at this point).

Zlatan
February 25th, 2011, 10:10 PM
I can see only point for Banshee guys to be unhappy- is that they want to look great for Gnome. Cause Banshee does not get anything here anyway.
Gnome should be the ones to complain here because of donations but not Banshee guys because their player is opensource and properly licenced and Canonical are free to change it as they want to.
My 0.02$

handy
February 25th, 2011, 10:11 PM
It will be interesting to see how the OS X, version of Banshee goes on iTunes home ground.

handy
February 25th, 2011, 10:12 PM
I can see only point for Banshee guys to be unhappy- is that they want to look great for Gnome. Cause Banshee does not get anything here anyway.
Gnome should be the ones to complain here because of donations but not Banshee guys because their player is opensource and properly licenced and Canonical are free to change it as they want to.
My 0.02$

It is worth remembering that the Banshee guys are Novell...

Simian Man
February 25th, 2011, 10:29 PM
So much bitching and moaning, they wouldn't get anything at all if Ubuntu didn't use them.
Except all of the people on other distros, or who use the OSX or Windows pre-releases. Or all the people who have downloaded Banshee prior to the next Ubuntu release. And Ubuntu wouldn't get anything at all from Amazon without Banshee.


I agree with what was said before, they are a company and they need to make money.

We get a decent product from them for free, so sue them for trying to sustain themselves for the freedom we get!
Ubuntu doesn't give anyone "freedom". They are a glorified middle-man who release work that was done almost entirely by others. Can you really not understand why people are upset??

ubuntu27
February 25th, 2011, 10:30 PM
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/02/banshee-in-ubuntu-11-04-will-ship-with-two-music-stores/

cgroza
February 25th, 2011, 10:34 PM
What a shock, a company seeks to maximise its revenue streams. Who's surprised?
+1
If Canonical is getting profit from Ubuntu, it will continue to support Ubuntu.
What do you want people, you want Canonical to bankrupt and drop support for Ubuntu?

Ctrl-Alt-F1
February 25th, 2011, 10:48 PM
I think Canonical has the right to do whatever they want. I don't see this as corporate strong-arming. I see it as scrounging up pennies for survival. Does Canonical make any money even? Pretty sure they don't.

perroazul
February 25th, 2011, 10:56 PM
They are a glorified middle-man who release work that was done almost entirely by others.

sure, canonical takes something like this (http://www.dap-inc.com/service/d90-chassis-roller.jpg), and gives to the users something like this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ojUskGMr5q8/TEDxXedxnpI/AAAAAAAAAK0/Cv5w6xQse0U/s1600/purple+car.jpg), which they would even ship for free to people all over the world. I wonder why Ubuntu is so popular. I only hope that in some future Ubuntu will become an economically self-sustaining project, so that everybody can continue using it and enjoying it for years to come

RiceMonster
February 25th, 2011, 11:00 PM
sure, canonical takes something like this (http://www.dap-inc.com/service/d90-chassis-roller.jpg), and gives to the users something like this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ojUskGMr5q8/TEDxXedxnpI/AAAAAAAAAK0/Cv5w6xQse0U/s1600/purple+car.jpg), which they would even ship for free to people all over the world. I wonder why Ubuntu is so popular. I only hope that in some future Ubuntu will become an economically self-sustaining project, so that everybody can continue using it and enjoying it for years to come

I don't think Debian users would like that analogy ;).

jerenept
February 25th, 2011, 11:14 PM
It is worth remembering that the Banshee guys are Novell...

Really? THAT is you argument? "OMG teh eeevillzzz Novell"?
1) Since when is Banshee developed by Novell?
2) What exactly is your problem with Novell? Cause it looks like Canonical is really treating the Banshee team, and GNOME, like cr*p.

handy
February 25th, 2011, 11:24 PM
Really? THAT is you argument? "OMG teh eeevillzzz Novell"?

What argument??? :confused:



1) Since when is Banshee developed by Novell?
2) What exactly is your problem with Novell? Cause it looks like Canonical is really treating the Banshee team, and GNOME, like cr*p.

No need to get personal. I think you should put your emotions back in your pocket as they are causing you to totally misunderstand what I wrote.

handy
February 25th, 2011, 11:26 PM
For those that have the time, this is a very interesting & thought provoking read which is likely appropriate to this thread:

http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html

JDShu
February 25th, 2011, 11:41 PM
Really? THAT is you argument? "OMG teh eeevillzzz Novell"?
1) Since when is Banshee developed by Novell?
2) What exactly is your problem with Novell? Cause it looks like Canonical is really treating the Banshee team, and GNOME, like cr*p.

Dude, I think handy meant that Novell deserves credit for developing Banshee, and Canonical is profiting off of Novell's investment.

Paqman
February 25th, 2011, 11:43 PM
Ubuntu doesn't give anyone "freedom". They are a glorified middle-man who release work that was done almost entirely by others. Can you really not understand why people are upset??

So do all distros. That's why they're called distros. They collect, organise and distribute the outputs of the many small projects that make up desktop Linux.

Don't kid yourself that there isn't any value added in this process. It's a complicated, difficult and important job.

perroazul
February 25th, 2011, 11:43 PM
I don't think Debian users would like that analogy ;).

I agree with you, but I think that the analogy is accurate. without the chassis, the thing wouldn't run, but If it not were for the far better user experience and attention to details, Ubuntu wouldn't be as popular.

Witch Lady
February 25th, 2011, 11:54 PM
Still I don't get what's the fuss about.
What's wrong with 25% from both stores? Isn't that way everybody full?

NightwishFan
February 25th, 2011, 11:55 PM
I don't think Debian users would like that analogy ;).

:popcorn:


I agree with you, but I think that the analogy is accurate. without the chassis, the thing wouldn't run, but If it not were for the far better user experience and attention to details, Ubuntu wouldn't be as popular.


As a Debian and Ubuntu user I can say that I find Debian far more usable than it is given credit for, and I find Ubuntu a lot less "evil" or corporate than many say. I will say this though, I am rather tired of making excuses for Ubuntu about some things. That does not include Unity though, I would be happy to use Unity on both Ubuntu and Debian. It will be awesome in time, and seems less limiting and potentially confusing than the gnome shell (which I also like, just not as much).

Bigtime_Scrub
February 26th, 2011, 12:48 AM
Still I don't get what's the fuss about.
What's wrong with 25% from both stores? Isn't that way everybody full?

The fuss is Banshee gave Gnome 100% and while Canonical isn't wealthy Uncle Money Bags it has far more cash than Gnome.

c3141ubu
February 26th, 2011, 01:18 AM
Puerile nonsense like this is why I stopped using Linux a long time ago. One of the biggest problems with Ubuntu/Debian is the proclivity to modify upstream packages and, worse yet, to do so without documenting the changes. Upstream packages should not be modified except for the basic work that is necessary to ensure integration and compatibility. It certainly shouldn't be hijacked to redirect money.

I use FreeBSD for my UNIX fix now. It's a lot less of a headache and I'm not constantly dealing with people who have nothing better to do then turn upstream packages into their own personal playground.

Simian Man
February 26th, 2011, 02:24 AM
So do all distros. That's why they're called distros. They collect, organise and distribute the outputs of the many small projects that make up desktop Linux.

Don't kid yourself that there isn't any value added in this process. It's a complicated, difficult and important job.
I didn't say that there was no value added, just not much. As others have pointed out, it's not like Ubuntu is the only usable distro or something. And taking the Lion's share of the profits isn't right when you've done the Mouse's share of the work.

I bet that next Canonical patches vim so that instead of saying "Help poor children in Uganda!" it will say "Help Mark Shuttleworth's coffers!" :).

jerenept
February 26th, 2011, 02:33 AM
I didn't say that there was no value added, just not much. As others have pointed out, it's not like Ubuntu is the only usable distro or something. And taking the Lion's share of the profits isn't right when you've done the Mouse's share of the work.

I bet that next Canonical patches vim so that instead of saying "Help poor children in Uganda!" it will say "Help Mark Shuttleworth's coffers!" :).

VIM says that?

I thought it would say "RMS recommends you use emacs, for reasons known only to him"

Simian Man
February 26th, 2011, 02:43 AM
VIM says that?

I thought it would say "RMS recommends you use emacs, for reasons known only to him"

Yes, if you start it with no file. Also on the vim site, (http://www.vim.org/sponsor/index.php) it explains that contributions should go to that charity instead. Your message might be on the gNewSense vim package :).

earthpigg
February 26th, 2011, 03:05 AM
If Banshee didn't want Canonical to do this, why did they grant permission (http://banshee.fm/about/license/)?


Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Good for Banshee for choosing that license, but that doesn't give them the right to add additional clauses willy-nilly as time progresses. Banshee was a gift, freely given to the commercial and non-commercial world under those exact terms. Nothing more, nothing less.

I thank them for it, but I don't think that obligates any of the benefactors to give back to them. It would certainly be nice and ought to be encouraged, but it isn't any form of legal or ethical obligation.


When I hold the door for the person behind me, I do it because I felt like being nice. Not because I expect anything in return -- not even a "thank you". It would be nice, but I wont hold it against anyone failing to do so. If I did, then that means I am actually being greedy and selfish whenever I hold the door open for someone else.

And that is how I regard others that demand/expect returns on unsolicited gifts that have been freely given.

JDShu
February 26th, 2011, 03:25 AM
If Banshee didn't want Canonical to do this, why did they grant permission (http://banshee.fm/about/license/)?


earthpigg, I think its worth noting that both Canonical and the Banshee team have been very civil about this. In fact Banshee is almost bending over backwards (http://abock.org/2011/02/24/an-open-proposal-to-canonical). Personally, I am sympathetic to both parties. Its the communities that are blowing up.

jerenept
February 26th, 2011, 03:52 AM
earthpigg, I think its worth noting that both Canonical and the Banshee team have been very civil about this. In fact Banshee is almost bending over backwards (http://abock.org/2011/02/24/an-open-proposal-to-canonical). Personally, I am sympathetic to both parties. Its the communities that are blowing up.

Yeah, the key to "bending over backwards" is not to break your back.

JDShu
February 26th, 2011, 04:09 AM
Yeah, the key to "bending over backwards" is not to break your back.

As I said before, no matter what share... even if Canonical was taking 99% of the profits, Banshee gets a net benefit, since its not currently offered by default anyway.

handy
February 26th, 2011, 04:20 AM
It would seem that his problem & some others as mentioned in the link I posted previously are very likely motivated by the need to get Ubuntu to pay for itself.

The years are rolling by; the netbook opportunity seems to have been lost, the server side service contracts are apparently growing, the mobile phone side seems to have been won by Google, tablets are a questionable market.

Ten million dollars only goes so far when you are employing people in an unprofitable business.

This situation is quite likely going to cause Canonical to make more decisions in an effort to survive, that don't sit well with many in the community in the future.

Time will tell.

earthpigg
February 26th, 2011, 06:26 AM
earthpigg, I think its worth noting that both Canonical and the Banshee team have been very civil about this. In fact Banshee is almost bending over backwards (http://abock.org/2011/02/24/an-open-proposal-to-canonical). Personally, I am sympathetic to both parties. Its the communities that are blowing up.

Very reasonable. I wasn't trying to imply that the folks at Banshee are bad people are anything.

sudoer541
February 26th, 2011, 07:36 AM
I like the decision, I think this will help Canonical.
They dont make money, so its a good opportunity to make profit.
Dont forget Canonical made Ubuntu (almost) mainstream.

handy
February 26th, 2011, 09:02 AM
I like the decision, I think this will help Canonical.
They dont make money, so its a good opportunity to make profit.
Dont forget Canonical made Ubuntu (almost) mainstream.

I agree. Gain financial credits yes. It is still nowhere near enough (a pittance really) to allow them to be a profitable company.

JDShu
February 26th, 2011, 09:10 AM
I agree. Gain financial credits yes. It is still nowhere near enough (a pittance really) to allow them to be a profitable company.

Actually, I think the deal has the potential to reduce Canonical's revenue, since 25% of both the Ubuntu Music store and Banshee now goes to GNOME.

handy
February 26th, 2011, 09:14 AM
Actually, I think the deal has the potential to reduce Canonical's revenue, since 25% of both the Ubuntu Music store and Banshee now goes to GNOME.

You are absolutely right.

dh04000
February 26th, 2011, 09:24 AM
I don't understand why a bunch of nerds are getting into a turf war over this.......... for god's sake...... its only $10,000 at sake. That won't even pay for single developer........ or even his benefits........

Does anyone else think this is insanity?!?

MisterGaribaldi
February 26th, 2011, 09:30 AM
You mean people still use Gnome? :lolflag:

KDE for me!

handy
February 26th, 2011, 09:49 AM
I don't understand why a bunch of nerds are getting into a turf war over this.......... for god's sake...... its only $10,000 at sake. That won't even pay for single developer........ or even his benefits........

Does anyone else think this is insanity?!?

They seem to be the quiet majority...

ikt
February 26th, 2011, 11:23 AM
This attitude that Banshee should be grateful that Ubuntu is distributing it is extremely arrogant, in my opinion.

Thems the breaks.

If microsoft did this I'd be like: lol even if microsoft took 99.5% of your revenue you'd still be making a boatload more!

Spice Weasel
February 26th, 2011, 12:26 PM
This attitude that Banshee should be grateful that Ubuntu is distributing it is extremely arrogant, in my opinion.

It's funny because if it were Microsoft doing this we would see 10 threads all flaming them.

Zlatan
February 26th, 2011, 02:29 PM
if banshee didn't want canonical to do this, why did they grant permission (http://banshee.fm/about/license/)?



Good for banshee for choosing that license, but that doesn't give them the right to add additional clauses willy-nilly as time progresses. Banshee was a gift, freely given to the commercial and non-commercial world under those exact terms. Nothing more, nothing less.

I thank them for it, but i don't think that obligates any of the benefactors to give back to them. It would certainly be nice and ought to be encouraged, but it isn't any form of legal or ethical obligation.


When i hold the door for the person behind me, i do it because i felt like being nice. Not because i expect anything in return -- not even a "thank you". It would be nice, but i wont hold it against anyone failing to do so. If i did, then that means i am actually being greedy and selfish whenever i hold the door open for someone else.

And that is how i regard others that demand/expect returns on unsolicited gifts that have been freely given.

this

alexfish
February 26th, 2011, 02:52 PM
I don't understand why a bunch of nerds are getting into a turf war over this.......... for god's sake...... its only $10,000 at sake. That won't even pay for single developer........ or even his benefits........

Does anyone else think this is insanity?!?

GNOME founder Miguel de Icaza wasn't as polite Ewing, and also struck out (https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/40878260325859328) aggressively at Ubuntu:
@jonobacon (https://twitter.com/jonobacon) Oh you are entirely within your rights. Douchebags, ******* and **** almost never violate any laws. A **** move is a **** move

http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2011/02/debate-on-ubuntu-linuxs-banshe.html

Zlatan
February 26th, 2011, 03:34 PM
GNOME founder Miguel de Icaza wasn't as polite Ewing, and also struck out (https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/40878260325859328) aggressively at Ubuntu:
@jonobacon (https://twitter.com/jonobacon) Oh you are entirely within your rights. Douchebags, ******* and **** almost never violate any laws. A **** move is a **** move

http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2011/02/debate-on-ubuntu-linuxs-banshe.html




looks like Miguel has had kind of punch looong time ago :D

Santaji
February 26th, 2011, 03:57 PM
Can someone please explain why the 1337 Free & Open Source nerds are so pissed off at Canonical for? I've read through the whole thread and still have no idea what all the fuss is about?
The people that make Banshee get 25% of the revenue earned on every purchase on the Ubuntu One music store right?
How much do they get on every purchase on the Amazon store?

alexfish
February 26th, 2011, 04:38 PM
Can someone please explain why the 1337 Free & Open Source nerds are so pissed off at Canonical for? I've read through the whole thread and still have no idea what all the fuss is about?
The people that make Banshee get 25% of the revenue earned on every purchase on the Ubuntu One music store right?
How much do they get on every purchase on the Amazon store?

don't think FOSS has anything to do with the argument

long and short , history tells us that Distro's can't survive on Charity for ever

so if there are commercial routes to maintain it's longevity ( not forgetting where the Charity Money came from in the first place) . then for me Canonical have made a brave move , but possibly a step in the right direction .. Paving the way to have Commercial software available to linux makes sense to a business world.

ask the question and often seen , ***** blah is the only reason I don't use linux: end of

wojox
February 26th, 2011, 04:39 PM
GNOME founder Miguel de Icaza wasn't as polite Ewing, and also struck out (https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/40878260325859328) aggressively at Ubuntu:
@jonobacon (https://twitter.com/jonobacon) Oh you are entirely within your rights. Douchebags, ******* and **** almost never violate any laws. A **** move is a **** move

http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2011/02/debate-on-ubuntu-linuxs-banshe.html




I read that earlier this morning. You know it's getting bad when their fighting on Twitter. :P

alexfish
February 26th, 2011, 05:24 PM
I read that earlier this morning. You know it's getting bad when their fighting on Twitter. :P

Totally agree , but not such a bad thing , someone tolled me, use Twitter only as a last resort . maybe one of them end up renaming Twitter , Tell them to introduce an "a" in place of the obvious....:P

clanky
February 26th, 2011, 05:46 PM
If Banshee didn't want Canonical to do this, why did they grant permission (http://banshee.fm/about/license/)?



Good for Banshee for choosing that license, but that doesn't give them the right to add additional clauses willy-nilly as time progresses. Banshee was a gift, freely given to the commercial and non-commercial world under those exact terms. Nothing more, nothing less.

I thank them for it, but I don't think that obligates any of the benefactors to give back to them. It would certainly be nice and ought to be encouraged, but it isn't any form of legal or ethical obligation.


When I hold the door for the person behind me, I do it because I felt like being nice. Not because I expect anything in return -- not even a "thank you". It would be nice, but I wont hold it against anyone failing to do so. If I did, then that means I am actually being greedy and selfish whenever I hold the door open for someone else.

And that is how I regard others that demand/expect returns on unsolicited gifts that have been freely given.

No, it doesn't obligate Canonical to do so, certainly not in any legal sense, the problem is that for years the FOSS community have been loudly proclaiming that it is possible to make money out of free software, this proves that it is also possible to be royally shafted by greedy unscrupulous people who take your code and say "well hey, you GPL'd it, we can do what we like"

If Canonical had done the decent thing and taken a reasonable cut rather than a ridiculously large one then developers would have looked and thought OK, this GPL thing can work, all this will do is to make developers think "free licenses, stuff 'em"

So much for open respect.

candtalan
February 26th, 2011, 06:22 PM
don't think FOSS has anything to do with the argument

long and short , history tells us that Distro's can't survive on Charity for ever

so if there are commercial routes to maintain it's longevity (not forgetting where the Charity Money came from in the first place). then for me Canonical have made a brave move, but possibly a step in the right direction .. Paving the way to have Commercial software available to linux makes sense to a business world.

It is a step in the right direction.
1) Banshee continues with its existing user base, Gnome continues getting what it did, from existing user base.
2) 12 million users of Ubuntu soon get added to the Banshee throng. Even with a few % from the Ubuntu connection, Banshee (Gnome) can give more to Gnome if they wish. They may of course, change their mind at any time about what they do with the money.
3) What is free software all about? http://banshee.fm/about/license/ Ah! yes, I remember!
So giving money when you do not have to is unfair?
4) Canonical sponsors Ubuntu, Canonical is a business. No Canonical, no Ubuntu. A question, what does (the reader) give to Ubuntu, financially? Like, where should Canonical get money? (Some people do give money, I know this).
5) Not so long ago, Red Hat code was openly copied and rebranded by a competitor as Unbrakable Linux, with a lower price tag. What did Red Hat say about this? Their shares have gone down the tubes?
6) As GNU/Linux begins to find itself in the mainstream, stuff like this is going to happen, every body is learning. [Please see (3) again]
7) There are countless derivations of Ubuntu. Why not somebody create one which uses Banshee differently?
8 ) I am not an enthusiast for Banshee at present, so if it can be replaced in time with something else in Ubuntu I think will not mind. Whatever it will be, I hope it will make money for Ubuntu, and FLOSS.

aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==
February 26th, 2011, 06:22 PM
This is how Free Software works. If the Banshee folks don't like it, they should have picked a licence that leaves them greater control of their creation. They're in no position to complain, what Canonical did was entirely appropriate.

fuduntu
February 26th, 2011, 07:00 PM
2) 12 million users of Ubuntu soon get added to the Banshee throng. Even with a few % from the Ubuntu connection, Banshee (Gnome) can give more to Gnome if they wish. They may of course, change their mind at any time about what they do with the money.


There hasn't ever been any published evidence to prove Ubuntu has 12 million users. It has been speculated, but I don't think that the number is that high (my guesstimate would be closer to 4 million).



4) Canonical sponsors Ubuntu, Canonical is a business. No Canonical, no Ubuntu. A question, what does (the reader) give to Ubuntu, financially? Like, where should Canonical get money? (Some people do give money, I know this).

Ubuntu couldn't exist without Canonical?

Without company X there would be no Debian, without Y no Slackware, and Z no Gentoo?

Without Canonical the community would continue Ubuntu or a derivative. This is what defines the community, not any one company. Don't forget that.



5) Not so long ago, Red Hat code was openly copied and rebranded by a competitor as Unbrakable Linux, with a lower price tag. What did Red Hat say about this? Their shares have gone down the tubes?

I don't think this really applies here. Oracle forked RHEL, and it is crazy cheaper but RedHat provides many services that add value to their product including a world class training and certification program, satellite, and more. Oracle devotes engineers to their fork that feed patches back upstream, so RedHat benefits from the fork also. This isn't the case of Banshee being forked and improved, it is being forked and only the payment ID altered. If Canonical dedicated staff to improving the product and sending the improvements upstream it would be hard to make an argument against their cut, but history proves that they don't play well with others.

JDShu
February 26th, 2011, 07:31 PM
Can someone please explain why the 1337 Free & Open Source nerds are so pissed off at Canonical for? I've read through the whole thread and still have no idea what all the fuss is about?
The people that make Banshee get 25% of the revenue earned on every purchase on the Ubuntu One music store right?
How much do they get on every purchase on the Amazon store?

People are getting angry because on the face of it, it goes against most people's sense of fairness. The bottom line is that by default, Canonical is going to take 75% of the revenue from user purchases in the Amazon music store through Banshee. That's obviously a huge majority from a product that Canonical barely, if at all, helped developed. The other issue is that Canonical is not really giving anybody the choice regarding the default setting.

Of course, revenue to Canonical actually falls from the deal, so to them it seems reasonable. They lose 25% of their revenue. If the deal was more "fair", say 50%, then they lose 50% of the money. That's huge. And there'd probably be a similarly huge outcry anyway.

JDShu
February 26th, 2011, 07:35 PM
On Miguel De Icaza: Dude really needs to be careful about what he says.

zekopeko
February 26th, 2011, 07:42 PM
There hasn't ever been any published evidence to prove Ubuntu has 12 million users. It has been speculated, but I don't think that the number is that high (my guesstimate would be closer to 4 million).

So that means there are 8 million Linux users.

NightwishFan
February 26th, 2011, 08:22 PM
On Miguel De Icaza: Dude really needs to be careful about what he says.

I talk to Jono all the time and he is a very nice and honest guy. So in my opinion what Miguel De Icaza said was uncalled for. However it is also not my business.

Dragonbite
February 26th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Actually, I think the deal has the potential to reduce Canonical's revenue, since 25% of both the Ubuntu Music store and Banshee now goes to GNOME.

So there are 2 aspects of the argument;

Whether or not the amount of volume change compensates the reduced per-purchase percentage being passed on to a worthy FOSS project that many, many people have benefited from using. If Ubuntu brings in enough buyers to increase the volume enough so the new count x 25% is greater than the old volume x (75 o 100)%.
If the volume is great enough or better, it's a win-win situation and Canonical will be lauded. If not, then Canonical will be considered a greedy corporation and the Gnome project is the one that has to deal with it.
Whether or not Canonical is treating the Banshee project right by taking the compassionate efforts they pushed through, making deals with Amazon as well as programming it into their application, and redirecting the revenue to themselves even after the Banshee developers stated they would rather not. If this sort of plan didn't already exist, if the project that benefitted was not the same project Ubuntu is largely built off of, and if the Banshee project didn't say they would rather leave out the plugin than change the % then all of this would be seen in a different light.


Largely, though, we little people don't have a say one way or the other. The deal will go through because without any legal means to force it one way or the other there is no recourse, and all positive aspects of the deal (giving to Gnome, etc.) will be spun by marketers to put Canonical in good light (if Canonical marketers are any good).

So while I may not agree 100% with the deal, the "end user experience" focus will be improved by allowing me to purchase music from Amazon's large collection in a means iTune users have enjoyed for years.

JDShu
February 26th, 2011, 08:51 PM
So there are 2 aspects of the argument;

Whether or not the amount of volume change compensates the reduced per-purchase percentage being passed on to a worthy FOSS project that many, many people have benefited from using. If Ubuntu brings in enough buyers to increase the volume enough so the new count x 25% is greater than the old volume x (75 o 100)%.
If the volume is great enough or better, it's a win-win situation and Canonical will be lauded. If not, then Canonical will be considered a greedy corporation and the Gnome project is the one that has to deal with it.
Whether or not Canonical is treating the Banshee project right by taking the compassionate efforts they pushed through, making deals with Amazon as well as programming it into their application, and redirecting the revenue to themselves even after the Banshee developers stated they would rather not. If this sort of plan didn't already exist, if the project that benefitted was not the same project Ubuntu is largely built off of, and if the Banshee project didn't say they would rather leave out the plugin than change the % then all of this would be seen in a different light.



Point 1 is not the right way to understand what is going on. The point is that Ubuntu supplying Banshee by default is ALWAYS better for GNOME than Ubuntu not defaulting to Banshee. The money that Canonical rakes in will ALWAYS be less than what they are getting now (all else remaining the same, of course). This would be true if Canonical took 99.99% of the Ubuntu Banshee revenue.

As for point 2, it's fair to say that Canonical botched up their PR good.

bruce89
February 27th, 2011, 12:52 AM
But lets not forget Ubuntu is moving away from many other normal Linux distro choices. They are moving from OpenOffice to LibreOffice (another project of Novell), from X11 to Wayland, Unity instead of GNOME Shell.

Aside from the last one, all other distros will be doing the same (especially LibreOffice).

I think some people don't realise is that upstream Banshee has 100% of their Amazon money go to the GNOME Foundation.

This whole thing smacks of desparation. Stealing money from a not profit is not very nice.

James7
February 27th, 2011, 01:16 AM
How can I code it so I can get the revenue on my own system? ;)

cariboo
February 27th, 2011, 01:24 AM
This whole thing smacks of the continuing political problems between Canonical and Gnome. Canonical was the Gnome Foundations third highest contributor in 2009, after Google and Intel, at $27,000, (figures available here (http://foundation.gnome.org/finance/)).

directhex
February 27th, 2011, 01:28 AM
How can I code it so I can get the revenue on my own system? ;)

Run your own instance of the integrated-services daemon, which you've modified with your affiliate codes, and recompile the Amazon extension to point to your local URL.

cprofitt
February 27th, 2011, 01:43 AM
Ubuntu doesn't give anyone "freedom". They are a glorified middle-man who release work that was done almost entirely by others. Can you really not understand why people are upset??

I do not say that it is fair to say that Canonical is just a middle-man. Perhaps if all you count is coding, but that is not all that is required to have a distribution. What about the large number of CDs that Canonical puts out (they cost something to make and something to ship).

As has been said Canonical could have taken 100% of the revenue without telling anyone... but they chose to make an offer. Perhaps some do not like that offer and that is there choice, but I do not have a problem with it.

ivanovnegro
February 27th, 2011, 01:49 AM
A very interesting discussion here.
I see, the box of pandora was opened.
Anyway Im not interested in Banshee as my main media player, simply does not suit my needs.
Im not aware about all the backgrounds about this discussion, the only thing I know is, that the discussion in general does not make good publicity for Ubuntu/FOSS and with that I dont what to say that Im against Canonical's nor Banshee's decisions or at least it makes me feel that the commuinty is not strong or somehow splitted.

rg4w
February 27th, 2011, 02:22 AM
I've read just about every post in this thread but haven't found the answers to two questions:

1. Why is Canonical dropping Rhythmbox as the default player?

2. Does the agreement between Banshee and Canonical require Banshee to alter their share of proceeds on distros other than Ubuntu?

JDShu
February 27th, 2011, 02:24 AM
I've read just about every post in this thread but haven't found the answers to two questions:

1. Why is Canonical dropping Rhythmbox as the default player?


Banshee is, in many ways better. Also Rhythmbox is no longer being improved.



2. Does the agreement between Banshee and Canonical require Banshee to alter their share of proceeds on distros other than Ubuntu?

No.

rg4w
February 27th, 2011, 02:32 AM
1. Why is Canonical dropping Rhythmbox as the default player? Banshee is, in many ways better. Also Rhythmbox is no longer being improved.
Thank for the quick reply. I kinda like Rhythmbox, but Banshee's good too IMO.



2. Does the agreement between Banshee and Canonical require Banshee to alter their share of proceeds on distros other than Ubuntu?No. Forgive me if I'm missing something, but doesn't that imply that Banshee will only make more money than ever before under this deal with Canonical, even at 25%?

I could understand the uproar if this was going to somehow alter how Banshee gets money for Gnome elsewhere, but by becoming the default music player in Ubuntu it would seem it'll get far more than four times the number of users in Ubuntu than it ever had before, no?

JDShu
February 27th, 2011, 02:37 AM
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but doesn't that imply that Banshee will only make more money than ever before under this deal with Canonical, even at 25%?

I could understand the uproar if this was going to somehow alter how Banshee gets money for Gnome elsewhere, but by becoming the default music player in Ubuntu it would seem it'll get far more than four times the number of users in Ubuntu than it ever had before, no?

You are completely correct. Thats the economically rational analysis. I've been repeating this over and over in this thread :P

However, we are not 100% rational creatures and so we have our own senses of fairness, and a 25-75 split sounds unfair to pretty much everybody.

Primefalcon
February 27th, 2011, 02:40 AM
frankly I'll probably stick with Rhythmbox simply because I already have my feeds in it, and it'd be a pain in the rear to change them all over.

Since I keep a seperate data partition Rhythmbox will still remember all my preferences on upgrade to 11.04

sffvba[e0rt
February 27th, 2011, 09:22 AM
The tallest trees are most in the power of the winds, and ambitious men of the blasts of fortune. - Penn, William


404

simpleblue
February 27th, 2011, 09:33 AM
Is there really a benefit to this outcry when Ubuntu is not doing anything wrong (legally or morally)? All these resentment episodes seem to be doing is hurting Linux and the open source concept in general.

I'm not sure who stirred up the trouble with these angry articles, but I think most of us know that Ubuntu will not change their mind, so why keep on making a fuss about it? It's as if someone wants some serious retribution.

Ubuntu made a mistake by giving Banshee the choice in the first place. Banshee's store hurts Ubuntu's share and it's unnecessary to have two or more pay sources for music alone. Since Ubuntu is a distro they have that choice to include it or not. Ubuntu is playing by the rules and is trying to accommodate, but it seems Banshee wants a little fight and perhaps gain some sympathy?

Linux Mint (to my knowledge) didn't ask Ubuntu if they wanted Ubuntu One disabled from their Software Center. Did they have to ask? No. Did Ubuntu get upset and express their disapproval for the world to see? No. They know that this is the way open source works.

I could see Microsoft right now laughing at our 1% share while we continue to have this civil war against ourselves.

Let us dry our eyes and not act like children about this.

splicerr
February 27th, 2011, 09:35 AM
Ha! Canonical is at it again. Always a good read on a rainy Sunday morning. Yes Canonical has every legal right to be so greedy, and no this is not a good way for Canonical to make friends within the opensource developer community. Anyway I'm not surprised by this behavior from Canonical at all. In the end I think the net effect will be that it will make developers think twice before they go the opensource route. Why put so much effort in developing software so that some billionaire have his employees substitute some strings so he can collect the money while sending you the bug reports. No thanks. Don't wanna be a slave for Canonical.

Zlatan
February 27th, 2011, 10:59 AM
Ha! Canonical is at it again. Always a good read on a rainy Sunday morning. Yes Canonical has every legal right to be so greedy, and no this is not a good way for Canonical to make friends within the opensource developer community. Anyway I'm not surprised by this behavior from Canonical at all. In the end I think the net effect will be that it will make developers think twice before they go the opensource route. Why put so much effort in developing software so that some billionaire have his employees substitute some strings so he can collect the money while sending you the bug reports. No thanks. Don't wanna be a slave for Canonical.

oh please, who has been a slave here actually- you for ubuntu or ubuntu for you?

NCLI
February 27th, 2011, 11:34 AM
Nice packaging doesn't justify a 75% take. Packing is trivial, and takes a few short minutes at most. Integration as a default also doesn't justify it, the distribution having a larger amount of the Linux desktop market doesn't automatically grant it the right to take a bigger cut.
Why not? It adds custumers to Banshee's store. I wouldn't be surprised if Banshee ends up earning more money for the Gnome foundation after being made default.


75% to the community and 25% to Canonical would be fair. I doubt there would be a single complaint.
That would mean a big loss in revenue for Canonical as opposed to keeping Rythmbox, or just replacing it with Banshee and ripping out the Amazon plugin, which they were definitely in their good right to do.

I think many people forget that:

1. Canonical contributes resources and money to the projects it depends on, including Gnome.
2. Canonical currently gets 100% of the revenue from its store, and it will make less and less sense to have it at all the less they get from it.

This attitude that Banshee should be grateful that Ubuntu is distributing it is extremely arrogant, in my opinion.
Why shouldn't they be grateful that they instantly get a pretty big marketshare boost? Not to mention that Canonical actually sat down with them and discussed terms instead of just doing it.

I'm not saying that poor little Banshee should be grateful to get help from big strong Canonical, just that they should be glad their opinion is taken into account at all, and that they still get to decide where 125% of the revenue goes.

Tibuda
February 27th, 2011, 02:27 PM
Those people that write Microsoft with a $ may start to write Canonical with a ¢... :popcorn:

sffvba[e0rt
February 27th, 2011, 02:40 PM
Those people that write Microsoft with a $ may start to write Canonical with a ¢... :popcorn:
I have actually seen this already on blogs (and more commonly on blog comments...)

rg4w
February 27th, 2011, 03:32 PM
Is there really a benefit to this outcry when Ubuntu is not doing anything wrong (legally or morally)? All these resentment episodes seem to be doing is hurting Linux and the open source concept in general.
Sometimes I dream of what could happen if the sum of human energy throughout the Linux world currently devoted to in-fighting were applied to writing apps and drivers instead....

...and then I wake up to the perpetual 1%.

alexfish
February 27th, 2011, 03:33 PM
Ha! Canonical is at it again. Always a good read on a rainy Sunday morning. Yes Canonical has every legal right to be so greedy, and no this is not a good way for Canonical to make friends within the opensource developer community. Anyway I'm not surprised by this behavior from Canonical at all. In the end I think the net effect will be that it will make developers think twice before they go the opensource route. Why put so much effort in developing software so that some billionaire have his employees substitute some strings so he can collect the money while sending you the bug reports. No thanks. Don't wanna be a slave for Canonical.

that is a fair and true reflection of the situation

and is precisely what will happen when people want to make career out of developing software ,
how many are hiding behind the FOSS banner or a revamped Distro, but at the same time making a living from it

RiceMonster
February 27th, 2011, 03:40 PM
I think many people forget that:

1. Canonical contributes resources and money to the projects it depends on, including Gnome.

So the argument is, "but we give the money back to GNOME". So why take it in the first place?


Canonical currently gets 100% of the revenue from its store, and it will make less and less sense to have it at all the less they get from it.

I think everyone would have been happy if Canonical would have kept 100% of Ubuntu one and left the amazon affiliate code alone. Which, in fact was an option proposed to the banshee team in the first place, and they voted for it. http://gburt.blogspot.com/2011/02/banshee-supporting-gnome-on-ubuntu.html


Why shouldn't they be grateful that they instantly get a pretty big marketshare boost? Not to mention that Canonical actually sat down with them and discussed terms instead of just doing it. I'm not saying that poor little Banshee should be grateful to get help from big strong Canonical, just that they should be glad their opinion is taken into account at all, and that they still get to decide where 125% of the revenue goes

Yes, they sat down, and proposed two options (see the link above). The Banshee team voted against them modifying the affiliate code. Then, Canonical did it anyway. So why even bother giving them the option if you're going to do something regardless of what they vote?

Swagman
February 27th, 2011, 04:15 PM
How does this internal bitchfest affect those of us that use a different music player and use Amazons 1click for any digital downloads anyway ?

Also.. 100% of sod all or
25% of 100%

which is better ? (I really wasn't that great at Math)

rajeev1204
February 27th, 2011, 04:52 PM
Ubuntu doesn't give anyone "freedom". They are a glorified middle-man who release work that was done almost entirely by others. Can you really not understand why people are upset??

Judging from this comment iam guessing you are not an Ubuntu user .The tone of this comment is so negative,i would be surprised if you were indeed using ubuntu.

JDShu
February 27th, 2011, 06:37 PM
I think everyone would have been happy if Canonical would have kept 100% of Ubuntu one and left the amazon affiliate code alone.


The Amazon store directly competes with the Ubuntu Music store. You can't expect them to do nothing about it. Canonical is hedging so that if their users move to Amazon, they lose less.



Yes, they sat down, and proposed two options (see the link above). The Banshee team voted against them modifying the affiliate code. Then, Canonical did it anyway. So why even bother giving them the option if you're going to do something regardless of what they vote?

Nobody outside knows what happened. Canonical called it a "mistake (http://gburt.blogspot.com/2011/02/canonicals-new-plan-for-banshee.html)". To me, it seems like a pretty genuine one, unless you actually believe that they are really that stupid. It really sounds more like an internal mismanagement within Canonical.

NCLI
February 27th, 2011, 07:32 PM
So the argument is, "but we give the money back to GNOME". So why take it in the first place?
Because Canonical's staff needs to be paid as well.


I think everyone would have been happy if Canonical would have kept 100% of Ubuntu one and left the amazon affiliate code alone. Which, in fact was an option proposed to the banshee team in the first place, and they voted for it. http://gburt.blogspot.com/2011/02/banshee-supporting-gnome-on-ubuntu.html
That same blog later posts that this was "a mistake", Until we hear more directly from the Banshee team, I will withhold my judgment.

I will say that you should listen to the Linux Action Show tomorrow, they make some very legitimate arguments.


Yes, they sat down, and proposed two options (see the link above). The Banshee team voted against them modifying the affiliate code. Then, Canonical did it anyway. So why even bother giving them the option if you're going to do something regardless of what they vote?
If the Banshee team itself complains, I will re-evaluate my stance.

Still, Canonical has the right to do whatever they want with Banshee, and I honestly think this deal makes sense, and is very fair for everyone.

danbuter
February 27th, 2011, 07:41 PM
I don't understand why Banshee is the default, anyways. Rythmbox is a superior program.

danbuter
February 27th, 2011, 07:42 PM
I have actually seen this already on blogs (and more commonly on blog comments...)

It's on the first page of this thread...

jerenept
February 27th, 2011, 07:42 PM
I don't understand why Banshee is the default, anyways. Rythmbox is a superior program.

I lol'd @ this.....

KiwiNZ
February 27th, 2011, 07:45 PM
So the argument is, "but we give the money back to GNOME". So why take it in the first place?

You cannot expect the customer to make 1,2,3 payments for one purchase. For logical administrative reasons it is better to collect the revenue in one payment and distribute as
deemed appropriate.

Personally I believe the Canonical decision here is a good one and one that needs to be made more often if open source is to grow. It's a sustainable business model.

gintovan
February 27th, 2011, 08:02 PM
You cannot expect the customer to make 1,2,3 payments for one purchase. For logical administrative reasons it is better to collect the revenue in one payment and distribute as
deemed appropriate.

Personally I believe the Canonical decision here is a good one and one that needs to be made more often if open source is to grow. It's a sustainable business model.

Personally I might not ethically agree totally with this decision but ^^ Exactly, Canonical is finding ways to make free software sustainable, and that is awesome!

Anyway I don't buy music in the first place (no I don't pirate. I just don't buy music), so I guess I could care less.

alexfish
February 27th, 2011, 08:16 PM
Personally I might not ethically agree totally with this decision but ^^ Exactly, Canonical is finding ways to make free software sustainable, and that is awesome!

Anyway I don't buy music in the first place (no I don't pirate. I just don't buy music), so I guess I could care less.

It not a question of ethics but a question of reality , especially when read in conjunction

with this

http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/24792-gnome-foundation-wants-your-money?start=1

most of which is self explanatory

ubuntu27
February 28th, 2011, 12:33 AM
Blogs and articles related to Banshee and Canonical controversy:

Canonical and Banshee: making money with others’ open source (http://sensehofstede.nl/canonical-and-banshee-making-money-with-others-open-source) by Sense Hofstede

Banshee In Natty To Ship Multiple Stores And Contribute To GNOME Foundation (http://www.jonobacon.org/2011/02/24/banshee-in-natty-to-ship-multiple-stores-and-contribute-to-gnome-foundation/)

Legally open, socially closed (http://mhall119.com/2011/02/legally-open-socially-closed/)

Witch Lady
February 28th, 2011, 11:00 PM
If Banshee didn't want Canonical to do this, why did they grant permission (http://banshee.fm/about/license/)?



Good for Banshee for choosing that license, but that doesn't give them the right to add additional clauses willy-nilly as time progresses. Banshee was a gift, freely given to the commercial and non-commercial world under those exact terms. Nothing more, nothing less.

I thank them for it, but I don't think that obligates any of the benefactors to give back to them. It would certainly be nice and ought to be encouraged, but it isn't any form of legal or ethical obligation.


When I hold the door for the person behind me, I do it because I felt like being nice. Not because I expect anything in return -- not even a "thank you". It would be nice, but I wont hold it against anyone failing to do so. If I did, then that means I am actually being greedy and selfish whenever I hold the door open for someone else.

And that is how I regard others that demand/expect returns on unsolicited gifts that have been freely given.

+1


People are getting angry because on the face of it, it goes against most people's sense of fairness. The bottom line is that by default, Canonical is going to take 75% of the revenue from user purchases in the Amazon music store through Banshee. That's obviously a huge majority from a product that Canonical barely, if at all, helped developed. The other issue is that Canonical is not really giving anybody the choice regarding the default setting.

Of course, revenue to Canonical actually falls from the deal, so to them it seems reasonable. They lose 25% of their revenue. If the deal was more "fair", say 50%, then they lose 50% of the money. That's huge. And there'd probably be a similarly huge outcry anyway.

Well, whatever you say, if I'm buying music from the net I'd like still to have the band/vocalist get as best share as possible not the guys who made the plugin or code for buying music online. If I want to donate for Gnome, I can donate it directly to them and do not need to use Banshee for that.

So, let's think about this: I do not use Banshee, I prefer Rhytmbox and will remove Banshee and install Rhythmbox anyway. I do not care about Amazon as they don't want all my money from me (buying books, CDs is ok but I can't buy MP3 at all cause of the country I live in), Gnome? Really didn't consider donating them, if anything, I would prefer to donate speciffically the Rhytmbox developers, but the Gnome foundation don't make it easy for me at all, not talking about paying with debit/credit card which is restricted in my country (the only other way is paypal which I refuse to use) so again somebody doesn't want my money. Yup, they gave the bank account number, but hey, I'd like some fancy goods too. ;)

I prefer Rhytmbox and Ubuntu One. What I will pay for music, 25% of that will go to Gnome. But that's more they would get from me in the near future anyway. Or any money at all if they don't change the donation process.


Sometimes I dream of what could happen if the sum of human energy throughout the Linux world currently devoted to in-fighting were applied to writing apps and drivers instead....

...and then I wake up to the perpetual 1%.
+1

And remember, if you want to donate Gnome speciffically, why do it through the use of a software?

rg4w
March 1st, 2011, 12:02 AM
I don't know if this is just paranoia, but this is certainly a different take on things - C# as a trap laid by Microsoft:

Banshee May Put Ubuntu, Canonical At Risk!
http://www.muktware.com/b/35/290/12/2011/663

NCLI
March 1st, 2011, 12:07 AM
I don't know if this is just paranoia, but this is certainly a different take on things - C# as a trap laid by Microsoft:

Banshee May Put Ubuntu, Canonical At Risk!
http://www.muktware.com/b/35/290/12/2011/663


Yes, that is paranoia, as has been shown countless times...

zekopeko
March 1st, 2011, 12:17 AM
I don't know if this is just paranoia, but this is certainly a different take on things - C# as a trap laid by Microsoft:

Banshee May Put Ubuntu, Canonical At Risk!
http://www.muktware.com/b/35/290/12/2011/663


Hahaha! The author of that "article" linked to BoycotNovel aka techrights as a source. Hilarious. :lolflag:

bruce89
March 1st, 2011, 12:32 AM
Because Canonical's staff needs to be paid as well.

Through morally unjustifiable means of taking money from a non-profit foundation? This just seems desperate.


Still, Canonical has the right to do whatever they want with Banshee, and I honestly think this deal makes sense, and is very fair for everyone.

I find that hard to believe. Why should a distributor take 75% of the "profits"?

rg4w
March 1st, 2011, 12:41 AM
Hahaha! The author of that "article" linked to BoycotNovel aka techrights as a source. Hilarious. :lolflag:
Yeah, the more I look into it the more it looks like this issue has already been vetted. My apologies for the needless link.

quazi
March 1st, 2011, 01:26 AM
Through morally unjustifiable means of taking money from a non-profit foundation? This just seems desperate.



I find that hard to believe. Why should a distributor take 75% of the "profits"?

The first point is just absurdly hyperbolic and is phrased in a way that makes it impossible to argue with. Canonical is not taking money away from a non-profit foundation. In all likelihood, through this deal, Gnome is getting far more than they would otherwise.

The second one is about equally inane. Banshee is a distributor as well, they certainly didn't produce the music, nor did they provide the Amazon purchasing system. Ubuntu is putting a competing music service in their desktop. It's entirely rational that they would want a majority of the affiliate fees as they're a large draw to the mp3 store to the detriment of their own.

fuduntu
March 2nd, 2011, 03:14 PM
The first point is just absurdly hyperbolic and is phrased in a way that makes it impossible to argue with. Canonical is not taking money away from a non-profit foundation. In all likelihood, through this deal, Gnome is getting far more than they would otherwise.

A nice hypothesis, but Canonical is changing the revenue stream. That is a fact. You can project that GNOME will benefit from the deal, but you can't guarantee that they will take more of an income than they do today.



The second one is about equally inane. Banshee is a distributor as well, they certainly didn't produce the music, nor did they provide the Amazon purchasing system. Ubuntu is putting a competing music service in their desktop. It's entirely rational that they would want a majority of the affiliate fees as they're a large draw to the mp3 store to the detriment of their own.

The Banshee team developed the plugin, and also developed Banshee so to imply that they did not provide the purchasing system is technically inaccurate. It is not entirely rational that Canonical take 75% simply because they have more users.

Tristam Green
March 2nd, 2011, 03:29 PM
Judging from this comment iam guessing you are not an Ubuntu user .The tone of this comment is so negative,i would be surprised if you were indeed using ubuntu.

Your post implies that an Ubuntu user cannot possibly have negative feelings toward Ubuntu, Canonical, or their dealings, which is patently false. That's analogous to party-line politics.



Personally, I don't think this is "agree to disagree" - it sounds like Canonical made a play, Banshee balked, and Canonical said "hey, we'll do it anyway. You should be grateful we're including you as the default media player in Ubuntu, so you're going to do this and like it."

It'd be interesting if no other distro adopts this model with Banshee, as it would destroy most of the legitimacy of this business deal.

Dragonbite
March 2nd, 2011, 03:57 PM
It seems to come down to respect.

Does Canonical respect the decision (to donate to Gnome) and works for the Banshee team?

Dragonbite
March 2nd, 2011, 08:11 PM
Am I the only person that sees similarities between Canonical, Apple and Microsoft, and the book Animal Farm?

JDShu
March 2nd, 2011, 08:12 PM
Personally, I don't think this is "agree to disagree" - it sounds like Canonical made a play, Banshee balked, and Canonical said "hey, we'll do it anyway. You should be grateful we're including you as the default media player in Ubuntu, so you're going to do this and like it."


From Mark Shuttleworth's blog, it seems pretty clear that it was a mismanagement, as I suspected. The original "choice" was given by somebody who did not have the right to give the choice.

JDShu
March 2nd, 2011, 08:15 PM
A nice hypothesis, but Canonical is changing the revenue stream. That is a fact. You can project that GNOME will benefit from the deal, but you can't guarantee that they will take more of an income than they do today.


Yes you can. Its a greater than or equal to relationship. GNOME is not going to lose money from the deal. And the revenue is only unchanged for GNOME given some extreme assumptions. Come on, this is not hard to understand.

clanky
March 2nd, 2011, 08:22 PM
Although the decision itself is fairly disgraceful, it may at least have the effect of making people realise that Canonical are not some kind of benevolent philanthropic entity who exist for the good of the community, but a business who exist to make money.

People may even start to realise that Microsoft are exactly the same.....OK that's probably hoping for a bit too much, but for those who are defending Canonical on this issue, ask yourself whether you would defend Microsoft or Apple for doing the same thing?

KiwiNZ
March 2nd, 2011, 08:31 PM
Although the decision itself is fairly disgraceful, it may at least have the effect of making people realise that Canonical are not some kind of benevolent philanthropic entity who exist for the good of the community, but a business who exist to make money.

People may even start to realise that Microsoft are exactly the same.....OK that's probably hoping for a bit too much, but for those who are defending Canonical on this issue, ask yourself whether you would defend Microsoft or Apple for doing the same thing?

I defend it why ?

CD's and DVD's cost to produce.
The servers that run such things as these Forums cost to purchase and to maintain.
The several Developer conferences held around the World cost to run.
The various promotional activity cost.
The on staff developer salaries and other staff salaries cost.

The initial investment from the private funds of Mark Shuttleworth probably should have a payback dividend to him.

So, should Canonical charge for goods and services and have a business model that can create a profit and fund all this ? of course it should.

KiwiNZ
March 2nd, 2011, 08:44 PM
Do I support every decision the Canonical and SABDFL makes ? hmmmmm No

jfreak_
March 2nd, 2011, 08:46 PM
I defend it why ?

CD's and DVD's cost to produce.
The servers that run such things as these Forums cost to purchase and to maintain.
The several Developer conferences held around the World cost to run.
The various promotional activity cost.
The on staff developer salaries and other staff salaries cost.

The initial investment from the private funds of Mark Shuttleworth probably should have a payback dividend to him.

So, should Canonical charge for goods and services and have a business model that can create a profit and fund all this ? of course it should.


I think clanky asked not whether we defend Canonical but whether we would defend Microsoft if they did they did the same?

ErikNJ
March 2nd, 2011, 08:47 PM
Yes you can. Its a greater than or equal to relationship. GNOME is not going to lose money from the deal. And the revenue is only unchanged for GNOME given some extreme assumptions. Come on, this is not hard to understand.

Well, it could also be argued that Ubuntu's gains would be put towards marketing. That, in turn, could pull people away from other distributions that leave the affiliate code as the Banshee developers had originally requested.

Anyway, I am very much in favor of Canonical's success. I want to see them become profitable with their business model. Ubuntu is the only commercial distribution that can be used with no cost (Redhat, Suse, etc charge a usage fee). However, I do also want to see Canonical grow in profitability via ethical business decisions. Changing the affiliate code when the developer's explicitly ask that it not be changed, while legal, is not ethical. In my opinion, Canonical deserves this backlash of the community against them - regardless of the services they've provided "for free." Let's not forget how many community members provided Canonical with their services for free too.

KiwiNZ
March 2nd, 2011, 08:49 PM
I think clanky asked not whether we defend Canonical but whether we would defend Microsoft if they did they did the same?

I have no issue with Microsoft doing the same, or Apple , or Sony.

fuduntu
March 2nd, 2011, 08:53 PM
Yes you can. Its a greater than or equal to relationship. GNOME is not going to lose money from the deal. And the revenue is only unchanged for GNOME given some extreme assumptions. Come on, this is not hard to understand.

Speculation.

fuduntu
March 2nd, 2011, 08:54 PM
From Mark Shuttleworth's blog, it seems pretty clear that it was a mismanagement, as I suspected. The original "choice" was given by somebody who did not have the right to give the choice.

This is what you call backpedaling.

fuduntu
March 2nd, 2011, 08:56 PM
I defend it why ?

CD's and DVD's cost to produce.


ISO hosting is cheap. I have given out hundreds of CDs, none of them are in use today. I don't think that the free CD / DVD concept is a success (at least not here in the states). It takes 6-8 weeks to receive media, and 1 hour to download the ISO.



The servers that run such things as these Forums cost to purchase and to maintain.


Sourceforge hosts them free.



The several Developer conferences held around the World cost to run.


I agree with this, Canonical has gotten much better at funding community events.



The various promotional activity cost.


I also agree with this.



The on staff developer salaries and other staff salaries cost.


The community would help build it for free. It does not have to be a company backed product.



The initial investment from the private funds of Mark Shuttleworth probably should have a payback dividend to him.


Fair enough.



So, should Canonical charge for goods and services and have a business model that can create a profit and fund all this ? of course it should.

I don't think anyone has argued that they shouldn't be able to profit. The argument put forward thus far is do they deserve 75% of the fees associated with Banshee. In my opinion, the answer is no.

fuduntu
March 2nd, 2011, 08:57 PM
Well, it could also be argued that Ubuntu's gains would be put towards marketing. That, in turn, could pull people away from other distributions that leave the affiliate code as the Banshee developers had originally requested.

Anyway, I am very much in favor of Canonical's success. I want to see them become profitable with their business model. Ubuntu is the only commercial distribution that can be used with no cost (Redhat, Suse, etc charge a usage fee). However, I do also want to see Canonical grow in profitability via ethical business decisions. Changing the affiliate code when the developer's explicitly ask that it not be changed, while legal, is not ethical. In my opinion, Canonical deserves this backlash of the community against them - regardless of the services they've provided "for free." Let's not forget how many community members provided Canonical with their services for free too.

I agree.

JDShu
March 2nd, 2011, 08:58 PM
Speculation.

No, its math.

fuduntu
March 2nd, 2011, 09:01 PM
No, its math.

Imaginary not-yet-realized math, perhaps.

ErikNJ
March 2nd, 2011, 09:01 PM
No, its math.

There are some variables missing from the math. ;)

JDShu
March 2nd, 2011, 09:02 PM
Imaginary not-yet-realized math, perhaps.


There are some variables missing from the math. ;)

Edit: My bad, I didn't refresh the right page

KiwiNZ
March 2nd, 2011, 09:03 PM
CD's and DVD's cost to produce.

ISO hosting is cheap.



Sourceforge hosts them free.



I agree with this, Canonical has gotten much better at funding community events.



I also agree with this.



The community would help build it for free. It does not have to be a company backed product.



Fair enough.



I don't think anyone has argued that they shouldn't be able to profit. The argument put forward thus far is do they deserve 75% of the fees associated with Banshee. In my opinion, the answer is no.

Why would a company selling 'cloud' place one of its services on a competitors servers?

I guess for me I am a bit outside the "community" model for all things Linux. I am an advocate for a self supporting viable business model that can take Linux into the future. If it is going to try to gain a greater foot hold other than a "hobby" OS it needs this.

fuduntu
March 2nd, 2011, 09:08 PM
Why would a company selling 'cloud' place one of its services on a competitors servers?


Selling a service isn't the same thing though. Selling a service requires a business plan that takes income from selling the service which is used for profit and the procurement of servers. :D

Income from selling MP3s doesn't really fit.



I guess for me I am a bit outside the "community" model for all things Linux. I am an advocate for a self supporting viable business model that can take Linux into the future. If it is going to try to gain a greater foot hold other than a "hobby" OS it needs this.


I don't disagree with you, I completely agree that Canonical should be able to build a business and turn a profit using free software, I simply think they are approaching the problem with the wrong business model.

They should take a hard look at RedHat, there are components there that could directly apply to Canonical and improve their bottom line within months of application IMHO.

KiwiNZ
March 2nd, 2011, 09:11 PM
Selling a service isn't the same thing though. Selling a service requires a business plan that takes income from selling the service which is used for profit and the procurement of servers. :D

Income from selling MP3s doesn't really fit.




I don't disagree with you, I completely agree that Canonical should be able to build a business and turn a profit using free software, I simply think they are approaching the problem with the wrong business model.

They should take a hard look at RedHat, there are components there that could directly apply to Canonical and improve their bottom line within months of application IMHO.

What is being attempted is diversification of income streams. Not a bad idea.

JDShu
March 2nd, 2011, 09:13 PM
Well, it could also be argued that Ubuntu's gains would be put towards marketing. That, in turn, could pull people away from other distributions that leave the affiliate code as the Banshee developers had originally requested.


But such a scenario would have no direct relation to the change in revenue stream in Banshee on Ubuntu itself. If Canonical spent other non-affiliate money on marketing, it could/would pull people away from other distributions as well.

fuduntu
March 2nd, 2011, 09:14 PM
What is being attempted is diversification of income streams. Not a bad idea.

Diversification of income streams is a fantastic idea, but that doesn't justify the 75% take from Banshee with 1% of effort (the package exists in debian, so the 1% includes applying a patch to the package and pushing it to the repository).

Just sayin. :D

ErikNJ
March 2nd, 2011, 09:33 PM
But such a scenario would have no direct relation to the change in revenue stream in Banshee on Ubuntu itself. If Canonical spent other non-affiliate money on marketing, it could/would pull people away from other distributions as well.

Forgive me if I am getting too silly with this... But, if Canonical were attracting users with money not gained from the change in the affiliate code, there's no argument about the affiliate code. That said, I see your point, if I understand correctly you are claiming that Canonical could pull people away from other distributions regardless of the revenue from the change in the affiliate code.

While speaking of "math." I think it'd be good PR for Canonical to share the number of Amazon downloads brought over various periods via Banshee. Then, it'd be good if we could see Gnome's data as to whether or not Canonical created a significant increase in music purchases or not. If Canonical really brings in a great number of new purchases, then the 75/25 split may be more justifiable. If it's minimal, then Canonical cannot argue that Ubuntu's market size has contributed value toward Banshee.

Dragonbite
March 2nd, 2011, 09:33 PM
I defend it why ?

CD's and DVD's cost to produce.
The servers that run such things as these Forums cost to purchase and to maintain.
The several Developer conferences held around the World cost to run.
The various promotional activity cost.
The on staff developer salaries and other staff salaries cost.

The initial investment from the private funds of Mark Shuttleworth probably should have a payback dividend to him.

So, should Canonical charge for goods and services and have a business model that can create a profit and fund all this ? of course it should.

So the end justifies the means?

Zlatan
March 2nd, 2011, 09:43 PM
Diversification of income streams is a fantastic idea, but that doesn't justify the 75% take from Banshee with 1% of effort (the package exists in debian, so the 1% includes applying a patch to the package and pushing it to the repository).

Just sayin. :D

I am pretty sure Banshee crew were ASKING to change their code and everything with their own licence, that says all. They just forgot that.
Ethics is to keep within licence and Canonical is more than right here.

JDShu
March 2nd, 2011, 09:47 PM
Forgive me if I am getting too silly with this... But, if Canonical were attracting users with money not gained from the change in the affiliate code, there's no argument about the affiliate code. That said, I see your point, if I understand correctly you are claiming that Canonical could pull people away from other distributions regardless of the revenue from the change in the affiliate code.

While speaking of "math." I think it'd be good PR for Canonical to share the number of Amazon downloads brought over various periods via Banshee. Then, it'd be good if we could see Gnome's data as to whether or not Canonical created a significant increase in music purchases or not. If Canonical really brings in a great number of new purchases, then the 75/25 split may be more justifiable. If it's minimal, then Canonical cannot argue that Ubuntu's market size has contributed value toward Banshee.

My argument is just that the affiliate code change results in a non-negative change in gnome's income, but I guess with the caveat "given all else remains the same". That is, changes in number of users for various distributions, changes in marketing money, changes in world conditions (hey, maybe its actually the YearOfLinuxDesktop and everybody moves to Linux and Ubuntu!) these are all external factors that require some good arguments to why they can be directly attributed to a change in the affiliate code.

In fact, Ubuntu would not need to publish anything. We just need to look at the GNOME Foundation's budget. If Banshee revenue + Ubuntu One Music store revenue increased then GNOME gained, if it decreased, then GNOME lost out.

ErikNJ
March 2nd, 2011, 10:01 PM
My argument is just that the affiliate code change results in a non-negative change in gnome's income, but I guess with the caveat "given all else remains the same". That is, changes in number of users for various distributions, changes in marketing money, changes in world conditions (hey, maybe its actually the YearOfLinuxDesktop and everybody moves to Linux and Ubuntu!) these are all external factors that require some good arguments to why they can be directly attributed to a change in the affiliate code.

I think we agree on the logic but I'd suggest the "caveat" is an important factor.



In fact, Ubuntu would not need to publish anything. We just need to look at the GNOME Foundation's budget. If Banshee revenue + Ubuntu One Music store revenue increased then GNOME gained, if it decreased, then GNOME lost out.

For completeness, it would be nice to correlate the changes.

BTW, are you the guy to nag with tough math questions? :)

JDShu
March 2nd, 2011, 10:16 PM
I think we agree on the logic but I'd suggest the "caveat" is an important factor.


I guess that's where we disagree, as I think that we need to isolate this particular decision and look at the effects that are directly attributable.



For completeness, it would be nice to correlate the changes.


True, but at least we'll be able to know the effects without Canonical's cooperation!



BTW, are you the guy to nag with tough math questions? :)

Nah, I'm the guy who annoys people by attempting to pick the math apart :D

Witch Lady
March 2nd, 2011, 11:01 PM
I think clanky asked not whether we defend Canonical but whether we would defend Microsoft if they did they did the same?

If Microsoft did what? Say clearly what are you asking about.


Yes you can. Its a greater than or equal to relationship. GNOME is not going to lose money from the deal. And the revenue is only unchanged for GNOME given some extreme assumptions. Come on, this is not hard to understand.

Well, as I wrote before - it may be 25% from Banshee's Amazon but it's still also 25% from Ubuntu One which is MORE money what would Gnome Foundation get from me at all. In the case Banshee is default and it's Amazon plugin ONLY that gets Gnome Foundation 100% - they would get ZERO dollars/euro from me at all. Heck, I'd donate ZERO euro to Gnome by the direct donation either. And that way, they get SOME money from me I wouldn't donate them otherwise.

Don't forget that Amazon's MP3 aren't buyable in the every country in the world, heck not even in the European Union. ><

Now add a money from Ubuntu One and Gnome should get more money than just using Amazon.

Quadunit404
March 2nd, 2011, 11:56 PM
Shuttleworth @everybody: Oh yeah, we made some mistakes regarding the Banshee deal. (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/shuttleworth-on-the-ubuntu-banshee-controversy-mistakes-were-made/8366)

NCLI
March 3rd, 2011, 01:22 AM
Diversification of income streams is a fantastic idea, but that doesn't justify the 75% take from Banshee with 1% of effort (the package exists in debian, so the 1% includes applying a patch to the package and pushing it to the repository).

Just sayin. :D

Let's try looking at it a little differently. Here are five unarguable facts:

1. Canonical currently gets 100% of the revenue it makes from its deal with 7Digital.
2. Canonical's goal is to one day sell enough UbuntuOne subscriptions, apps and songs to turn a profit.
3. Banshee wants to be the default media player in Ubuntu, and many users see it as an ideal replacement.
4. Canonical is looking for a new media player to replace the dead-in-the-water Rythmbox.
5. Banshee has its own Amazon store which donates revenue to the Gnome Foundation.

Do you see the problem here?

If making Banshee the default media player means that Canonical has to reduce its income from the music store significantly, or add competition by default(The Amazon store), the move no longer makes sense.

Canonical is clearly trying very hard to balance its own financial needs with the feelings of the community, and I'd say that they've stretched quite far.

fuduntu
March 3rd, 2011, 01:24 AM
Let's try looking at it a little differently. Here are five unarguable facts:

1. Canonical currently gets 100% of the revenue it makes from its deal with 7Digital.
2. Canonical's goal is to one day sell enough UbuntuOne subscriptions, apps and songs to turn a profit.
3. Banshee wants to be the default media player in Ubuntu, and many users see it as an ideal replacement.
4. Canonical is looking for a new media player to replace the dead-in-the-water Rythmbox.
5. Banshee has its own Amazon store which donates revenue to the Gnome Foundation.

Do you see the problem here?

If making Banshee the default media player means that Canonical has to reduce its income from the music store significantly, or add competition by default(The Amazon store), the move no longer makes sense.

Canonical is clearly trying very hard to balance its own financial needs with the feelings of the community, and I'd say that they've stretched quite far.

Calling 75/25 "trying very hard" is laughable at best.

NightwishFan
March 3rd, 2011, 01:30 AM
Calling 75/25 "trying very hard" is laughable at best.

I disagree. This is just nitpicking. It is not about the numbers it is about respect.

MechaMechanism
March 3rd, 2011, 01:37 AM
I think Canonical has every right to make money. I have no problem with this. Canonical should reduce the contribution to Gnome and Banshee. I think 10% is more than plenty or even better 5%.

Witch Lady
March 3rd, 2011, 01:38 AM
Calling 75/25 "trying very hard" is laughable at best.

It's 25% & 25%.

NCLI
March 3rd, 2011, 01:40 AM
Calling 75/25 "trying very hard" is laughable at best.
When you start out with 100%, being in the red, and trying to become profitable, 25% is quite a lot to give up, especially when you're free not to.

If you can't see that, I don't think I have any arguments which will convince you otherwise.

It's 25% & 25%.
That is irrelevant, it's 25%.

It's 50% out of 200%, true, but that's still 25%.

fuduntu
March 3rd, 2011, 02:23 AM
I disagree. This is just nitpicking. It is not about the numbers it is about respect.

Fair enough. It is my opinion though, so I'll just leave it at that. :D

Witch Lady
March 3rd, 2011, 02:28 AM
That's very relevant. Cause, as I pointed out before, Amazon isn't available in all the countries. And some countries (like Poland) can use Ubuntu One but can't use Amazon mp3 store. Amazon isn't even trating fair all the clients from the European Union countries (which is common market). I know Ubuntu One isn't ideal but it's still better than Amazon.

25% from Ubuntu One is better than 100% from ZERO. 25 & 25% but on a bigger scale is still better than 100% from less users.

Why nobody bash Banshee and Gnome foundation (if Linux is all about freedom and choices) cause they joined hands with a seller that limits users and decide who can use it and who not? Yet, they awarded them by being it a default store in open source/free soft.

Yet everybody bash Cannonical for doing the morally wrong thing (I believe it was a mismanagement) and Banshee is the poor victim here? Wrong.

If you (as a community members) are really all about the ethics in business you wouldn't support a free soft to take an offer from and join hands with the not-fair seller. So what if Amazon is popular? When it comes to selling mp3 it's not better than DRM-using companies.

Adam Riley
March 3rd, 2011, 04:47 PM
I thought this was Linux. I have no problem with Canonical taking even a 100% cut if they do in with their own music store and own plugin. If they can't make the money they need on their own backs maybe they should ask a few other Linux companies who ARE making money and doing it without his type of crap.

So what when Banshee comes out on Windows and Mac ( yes it is happening I compiled the alpha on my windows box the other day ).

Will they take a cut too? I kinda doubt it and what does that say about Canonical? Seriously? It looks like all the little fish trying to eat each other for funding. I guess in that case the bigger-little-fish alway wins? until it get eaten by a bigger-yet-fish that is...

Bye Ubuntu, I'll find some other distro that practices the "open source", "choice" mantra they preach.

NightwishFan
March 3rd, 2011, 07:01 PM
Canonical is not going to take a cut from the Windows and Mac versions. In my opinion this is overreacting, we would be sorry to lose you over this drama. I agree it is your choice and hey as long as you still have faith in free software in general.

nothingspecial
March 3rd, 2011, 07:18 PM
Excuse me but wasn't this an agreement?

If the 2(3) parties want to agree to a deal then let them agree to it. Stop getting your knickers in a twist. It's up to them.

I personally couldn't give a monkeys who gets what and will continue to buy my music at the record shop.

But good luck to all parties.

RiceMonster
March 3rd, 2011, 07:37 PM
Excuse me but wasn't this an agreement?

No.

nothingspecial
March 3rd, 2011, 07:40 PM
How much of a cut should the gstreamer project get?

Caboose885
March 3rd, 2011, 07:53 PM
I think its a good plan. At first I thought "SHAME ON CANONICAL!" but then I thought about it...At the moment Banshee is purely donations. Banshee will now have a steady stream of money (in theory)

nothingspecial
March 3rd, 2011, 08:05 PM
No.

Looks like one to me. They released Banshee under a free license, Canonical used it. Sounds above board and proper from what I can see. "You agree to blah blah blah..........." If they wanted money they could have released it commercially. No one has done any wrong here.

Mitigation - I don't use Banshee, nor am I ever likely to. Bloated piece of * that it is.

clanky
March 3rd, 2011, 09:45 PM
I defend it why ?

CD's and DVD's cost to produce.
The servers that run such things as these Forums cost to purchase and to maintain.
The several Developer conferences held around the World cost to run.
The various promotional activity cost.
The on staff developer salaries and other staff salaries cost.

The initial investment from the private funds of Mark Shuttleworth probably should have a payback dividend to him.

So, should Canonical charge for goods and services and have a business model that can create a profit and fund all this ? of course it should.

I agree that canonical should be entitled to a share of the revenue from Banshee sales through Ubuntu, what I take issue with is the following:

- 75% is ridiculous
- The way that canonical forced the issue rather than actually negotiating is unscrupulous
- The hypocrisy from certain parts of the Ubuntu community who support this move from canonical, but who would scream blue murder if Microsoft / Apple / Novell etc, did something similar.

It also concerns me that developers will just see this kind of behaviour as a reason to stay away from open source licensing.

JDShu
March 3rd, 2011, 09:53 PM
- The hypocrisy from certain parts of the Ubuntu community who support this move from canonical, but who would scream blue murder if Microsoft / Apple / Novell etc, did something similar.


I've been thinking about this. Is it really hypocrisy? Microsoft/Apple/Novell differ greatly in size to Canonical. For example, a poor man stealing and a rich man stealing: If they stole the same amount, are these equivalent? Under the law, yes. But we're not talking about the law. Ethically? Am I hypocritical to direct more anger at the rich man than the poor man?

Of course Canonical is not poor (I hope), but it seems to me that holding more powerful companies to higher standards is not something I can easily call hypocritical.

clanky
March 3rd, 2011, 10:06 PM
What is hypocritical to me is that the FOSS community generally claims the moral high ground on software, for them then to hold a company which they hold up as heroes of the FOSS movement to lower standards than the companies which they regularly pillory for being unethical is unjustifiable.

Paqman
March 3rd, 2011, 10:53 PM
What is hypocritical to me is that the FOSS community generally claims the moral high ground on software, for them then to hold a company which they hold up as heroes of the FOSS movement to lower standards than the companies which they regularly pillory for being unethical is unjustifiable.

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting people with there. Is everybody doing that? Just some people? Nobody?

cariboo
March 3rd, 2011, 10:53 PM
I know the truth gets in the way sometimes, but Mark Shuttleworth admitted (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/611) they screwed up, but they are at work putting measures in place, so that this doesn't happen again.

KiwiNZ
March 3rd, 2011, 11:20 PM
I agree that canonical should be entitled to a share of the revenue from Banshee sales through Ubuntu, what I take issue with is the following:

- 75% is ridiculous
- The way that canonical forced the issue rather than actually negotiating is unscrupulous
- The hypocrisy from certain parts of the Ubuntu community who support this move from canonical, but who would scream blue murder if Microsoft / Apple / Novell etc, did something similar.

It also concerns me that developers will just see this kind of behaviour as a reason to stay away from open source licensing.

I have no issue with Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, Mandriva, Sony........ doing the same. If it is legal then there is no issue. If people do not like it then loby the appropriate Lawmakers to legislate to make it illegal.

NCLI
March 3rd, 2011, 11:59 PM
No.

While it is true that the part about the 75/25 split wasn't a deal, Banshee is free to simply change its license to a more restrictive, but still Open Source license, which would give them more power.

If they don't do this, and don't complain about their treatment, I don't think they really have a problem with this.

Again, I will immediately revise my opinion of this if someone can point me to an actual Banshee developer who has complained about this.

jerenept
March 4th, 2011, 12:04 AM
I know the truth gets in the way sometimes, but Mark Shuttleworth admitted (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/611) they screwed up, but they are at work putting measures in place, so that this doesn't happen again.

Hmmm.... the truth does tend to get in the way sometimes....

rg4w
March 4th, 2011, 12:25 AM
So what when Banshee comes out on Windows and Mac ( yes it is happening I compiled the alpha on my windows box the other day ).

Will they take a cut too?
Unless Apple and Microsoft will be featuring Banshee as their default music player so it'll generate at least an order of magnitude more revenue than the project's ever seen before, that's hardly a meaningful comparison.

JDShu
March 4th, 2011, 01:21 AM
I know the truth gets in the way sometimes, but Mark Shuttleworth admitted (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/611) they screwed up, but they are at work putting measures in place, so that this doesn't happen again.

Mark Shuttleworth admits they messed up in their PR. This is indisputable and didn't really take him blogging it to realize.

NCLI
March 4th, 2011, 02:13 AM
Mark Shuttleworth admits they messed up in their PR. This is indisputable and didn't really take him blogging it to realize.
The main point of his blog post is that the Banshee devs should've never been given the choice, it was supposed to be something for Canonical to handle internally.

Dragonbite
March 4th, 2011, 03:05 AM
I know the truth gets in the way sometimes, but Mark Shuttleworth admitted (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/611) they screwed up, but they are at work putting measures in place, so that this doesn't happen again.

Of course. It is better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. That way you still get away with it, and try to save face at the same time.

bruce89
March 4th, 2011, 04:11 AM
Banshee is, in many ways better. Also Rhythmbox is no longer being improved.

I have no idea where you get that from, take a look at http://git.gnome.org/browse/rhythmbox/log/


The first point is just absurdly hyperbolic and is phrased in a way that makes it impossible to argue with. Canonical is not taking money away from a non-profit foundation. In all likelihood, through this deal, Gnome is getting far more than they would otherwise.

I don't doubt that the GNOME foundation will have a net increase in revenue, it's just that Canonical will get a lot more of it.


The second one is about equally inane. Banshee is a distributor as well, they certainly didn't produce the music, nor did they provide the Amazon purchasing system. Ubuntu is putting a competing music service in their desktop. It's entirely rational that they would want a majority of the affiliate fees as they're a large draw to the mp3 store to the detriment of their own.

I'm not sure how you can claim Banshee are a distributor, because generally speaking, distributions are the distributors. Also, the simple fact of why this is being done is because Amazon is the better option, so Canonical had to take a slice of the cake.


Yes you can. Its a greater than or equal to relationship. GNOME is not going to lose money from the deal. And the revenue is only unchanged for GNOME given some extreme assumptions. Come on, this is not hard to understand.

Canonical are certainly substantially better off because of the "deal". Receiving money for other peoples' efforts seems very strange.

jerenept
March 4th, 2011, 04:15 AM
I have no idea where you get that from, take a look at http://git.gnome.org/browse/rhythmbox/log/

Those are bugfixes mainly, not improvements, to the likes of Banshee.

bruce89
March 4th, 2011, 04:21 AM
Those are bugfixes mainly, not improvements, to the likes of Banshee.

http://git.gnome.org/browse/rhythmbox/tree/NEWS

I think that Canonical are going to find extracting money out of the desktop market very difficult. Alienating the rest of the Linux community certainly won't help.

jerenept
March 4th, 2011, 04:30 AM
http://git.gnome.org/browse/rhythmbox/tree/NEWS
http://banshee.fm/download/archives/1.9.4/


I think that Canonical are going to find extracting money out of the desktop market very difficult. Alienating the rest of the Linux community certainly won't help.

Agreed, but the "traditional Linux community" doesn't strike me as the type to buy any large amount of music, or cloud storage, etc.

bruce89
March 4th, 2011, 04:39 AM
http://banshee.fm/download/archives/1.9.4/


Doesn't matter for me, I don't care about music.

I know, bad argument skills, but I'm not a politician.


Agreed, but the "traditional Linux community" doesn't strike me as the type to buy any large amount of music, or cloud storage, etc.

Well I suppose that's the problem with this slightly odd business model. Unless they can get Ubuntu to the masses (which I doubt [another topic]), I can't see it working. It's also not as if there's a huge market for a enterprise Ubuntu, Red Hat pretty much has that covered I think (along with CentOS).

JDShu
March 4th, 2011, 05:58 AM
I have no idea where you get that from, take a look at http://git.gnome.org/browse/rhythmbox/log/



Looks like mostly translations, bug fixes, and plug-in ports. Certainly less dynamic than Banshee development.



Canonical are certainly substantially better off because of the "deal". Receiving money for other peoples' efforts seems very strange.

No. Canonical is going from 100% of all music purchases through Ubuntu to 75% of all music purchases through Ubuntu.

Dragonbite
March 4th, 2011, 06:04 AM
Right or wrong, the only way I see this deal not going through would be if Amazon states that the deal is only open to non-profit organizations.

At which point, Canonical redirects the funds to the Ubuntu project instead.

rg4w
March 4th, 2011, 07:27 AM
Receiving money for other peoples' efforts seems very strange.
Did either Canonical or Banshee make the music being sold?

sffvba[e0rt
March 5th, 2011, 01:26 PM
Right or wrong, the only way I see this deal not going through would be if Amazon states that the deal is only open to non-profit organizations.

At which point, Canonical redirects the funds to the Ubuntu project instead.

Mr. Dragonbite sir, it sounds to me you have been hanging out at the openSUSE forums for too long :p


404

jerenept
March 5th, 2011, 02:31 PM
Did either Canonical or Banshee make the music being sold?

When you buy from legal sources, the artist gets paid.

rg4w
March 5th, 2011, 05:17 PM
When you buy from legal sources, the artist gets paid.
Of course, but the artists aren't getting the majority of the revenue; in most deals they're lucky if they get 10%, probably far less.

My reply was to the comment, "Receiving money for other peoples' efforts seems very strange", but it's really not strange at all but very common. And in such circumstances, those who create the distribution channels which drive sales take a significant portion of the revenue, and the creators of the work being distributed still make more money than without those channels because of the orders-of-magnitude more people their work is delivered to.

By being featured Ubuntu as the default player, Banshee will very likely see many times more money going to the Gnome project than ever before.

Adam Riley
March 6th, 2011, 06:19 PM
Canonical is not going to take a cut from the Windows and Mac versions. In my opinion this is overreacting, we would be sorry to lose you over this drama. I agree it is your choice and hey as long as you still have faith in free software in general.
I was in no way implying Canonical will take a cut from Windows/Mac. I see how that may be what it sound like though, sorry for the poor choice of wording.

It was more a statement of comparison. If it comes to pass that Windows and Mac both want a cut of the Banshee plugin "profits" I'll take back most of what I said gladly.

In any case this still not cool. I like what Ubuntu has done for usability and the image of Linux. I have really enjoyed using and learning Eucalyptus via the UEC install, but if Canonical can not stand as a company on it's own two legs... well. Read this, I think it explains my "opinion" of the situation rather well.

http://decafbad.net/2011/02/25/canonical-banshee-and-the-supremely-****-move/

The ****'s in the URL above are the letter d, the letter i, c and the letter k ... gotta keep the interwebs safe kids!

Adam Riley
March 6th, 2011, 06:45 PM
Unless Apple and Microsoft will be featuring Banshee as their default music player so it'll generate at least an order of magnitude more revenue than the project's ever seen before, that's hardly a meaningful comparison.

It's more the precedent that I'm concerned about. I suppose I could fix this entire argument, at least for myself, and recompile Ubuntu One and the Amazon plugin for all my friends & family and redirect the affiliate profit to my own bank account? I'm sure I deserve it for the admin work I do for them all...

What's to stop me? It's exactly the stance Canonical is taking here as I see it.

ikt
March 6th, 2011, 06:58 PM
It's more the precedent that I'm concerned about. I suppose I could fix this entire argument, at least for myself, and recompile Ubuntu One and the Amazon plugin for all my friends & family and redirect the affiliate profit to my own bank account? I'm sure I deserve it for the admin work I do for them all...

What's to stop me?

Nothing?

Go for it?

fuduntu
March 6th, 2011, 07:01 PM
I came across this the other day.


// We ask that no one change these affiliate codes. ALL (100%) revenue
// generated by these affiliate IDs is sent directly to the GNOME
// Foundation. The GNOME Foundation controls/owns these affiliate IDs.
// Please help support Free Software through the GNOME Foundation!

- Banshee Amazon MP3 Store Source Code (http://git.gnome.org/browse/banshee/tree/src/Extensions/Banshee.AmazonMp3.Store/server/redirect.c#n75)

Here is the source (where I found it), there is a really well written opinion on the matter.

http://www.vuntz.net/journal/post/2011/02/28/Canonical,-you-re-breaking-my-heart

ikt
March 6th, 2011, 07:02 PM
I came across this the other day.


// We ask that no one change these affiliate codes. ALL (100%) revenue
// generated by these affiliate IDs is sent directly to the GNOME
// Foundation. The GNOME Foundation controls/owns these affiliate IDs.
// Please help support Free Software through the GNOME Foundation!

- Banshee Amazon MP3 Store Source Code (http://git.gnome.org/browse/banshee/tree/src/Extensions/Banshee.AmazonMp3.Store/server/redirect.c#n75)

isn't it cute :)

Check this part:



// This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
// it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as
// published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
// License, or (at your option) any later version.

Zlatan
March 6th, 2011, 09:13 PM
isn't it cute :)

Check this part:



// This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
// it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as
// published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
// License, or (at your option) any later version.

Banshee crew is messing with the licence... It is not safe to use their product anymore;)

nothingspecial
March 6th, 2011, 10:02 PM
And so Ubuntu develops, and so people don't like it.

Yawn

gnomeuser
March 6th, 2011, 11:17 PM
Banshee crew is messing with the licence... It is not safe to use their product anymore;)

The webserver bits are licensed under the AGPLv3+, in fact Gabriel Burt one of Banshee's lead developers has been involved in Open Source Software as a Service licensing issues. He is one of the founder authors of the Franklin Street Statement on Freedom and Network Services (http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/). Gabriel has several interesting posts on the issues involved on his blog (http://gburt.blogspot.com/search/label/freeservice).

The regular, non-server, bits are mostly licensed as MIT/X11.

Perfectly safe, all licensed under OSI approved licenses.

Zlatan
March 7th, 2011, 12:34 PM
The webserver bits are licensed under the AGPLv3+, in fact Gabriel Burt one of Banshee's lead developers has been involved in Open Source Software as a Service licensing issues. He is one of the founder authors of the Franklin Street Statement on Freedom and Network Services (http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/). Gabriel has several interesting posts on the issues involved on his blog (http://gburt.blogspot.com/search/label/freeservice).

The regular, non-server, bits are mostly licensed as MIT/X11.

Perfectly safe, all licensed under OSI approved licenses.

ok ok, that was just a little tease for Banshee from me:) to be more careful with licences and their users (pst, Canonical)