Canonical To Divert Money From GNOME

Julie188 writes "Canonical has reacted to backlash over its insane deal with Banshee by establishing a marginally better new deal. Banshee is a media/music player for Linux (and Windows and Mac) that supports music purchases via Amazon MP3. It will ship with Ubuntu 11.04. Amazon pays 10% to its affiliates — websites and software that send it business. Banshee had been donating its Amazon affiliate proceeds to GNOME. But Amazon's MP3 store competes with Canonical's MP3 store, Ubuntu One. So Canonical thought that it should help itself to 75% of the affiliate money from Banshee/Amazon sales and leave 25% for GNOME. The Banshee group said no thanks, we'll disable Amazon for Ubuntu users. Canonical is refusing to let Banshee disable Amazon. It has instead said it will contribute some money from Ubuntu One to GNOME but it still intends on keeping the lion's share for itself."

Comments

Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon

[Skystrider]

Which makes this whole kerfluffle look a bit ridiculous. But more than that, how does Canonical have control over the money that Banshee is donating to GNOME? Does Banshee send a check to Canonical with a request that it be forwarded to GNOME?

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon

[pavon]

Canonical modified the version of Banshee that it ships with Ubuntu to use their own Amazon affiliate code instead of Banshee's everytime a purchase is made. This is perfectly legal, since anyone can modify Banshee's source code. However, it is pretty shady IMHO; no better than the people that slap another name on OSS and try to sell it to unknowing consumers.

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon

[Pharmboy]

no better than the people that slap another name on OSS and try to sell it to unknowing consumers.

That would appear to only be valid if the end customer doesn't know. If Canonical is being upfront about it, and not trying to hide it, then I am not sure it is "wrong" in any broad sense of the phrase. Not preferable to Banshee? Perhaps, as you state, the license clearly allows it. Banshee has actively chosen an license that specifically allows this, if it is a big deal, they can change licenses. Based on comments above, the developers aren't the ones who are complaining anyway, just the bloggers.

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon

[Bogtha]

I don't think it's shady at all. Canonical build a complete operating environment. They take the majority of the code from the community, patch it heavily, contribute their own functionality and server resources, and integrate it all. They aren't simply selling a CD with stuff they've burned from the web. What the end user gets is Ubuntu, not a software collection.

When that user installs Ubuntu, installs a media player from Canonical's app centre, and then buys music, that sale is directly attributable to Ubuntu. If Banshee didn't exist, Canonical would use another media player to do the same thing or write their own if there wasn't one suitable. The actual media player in use isn't important. Canonical built the product, Canonical pushed the service, and Canonical runs the servers behind the app centre.

On a side note, doesn't just about every distro do the same thing with Firefox's default homepage and Google? Except without contributing anything at all back to Mozilla.org?

I'm not particularly enthused about the way the article writer spun this. It sounds like somebody at Canonical overstepped his bounds and made a mistake. But the article author keeps saying Canonical shouldn't have... Canonical shouldn't have... Canonical shouldn't have... the author sounds like he has an axe to grind and is using this screwup as an excuse. It reads like he's seen that somebody made a mistake but is deliberately pushing the idea that Canonical the organisation did this deliberately.

What the hell?

[Entropius]

I downloaded Ubuntu a while back because it was simple to install, it was straightforward to use, and it meant I didn't have to spend my time doing sysadmin-y things.

But what is all this bullshit about integrated mp3 stores? I want a fucking operating system with some basic general-purpose tools. If I want to buy mp3's I'll go do that; I don't want my operating system worrying about how I should. (Of course, I expect my distribution to include a media /player/ -- that's something else entirely.)

Re:What the hell?

[icebike]

I downloaded Ubuntu a while back because it was simple to install, it was straightforward to use, and it meant I didn't have to spend my time doing sysadmin-y things.

But what is all this bullshit about integrated mp3 stores? I want a fucking operating system with some basic general-purpose tools. If I want to buy mp3's I'll go do that; I don't want my operating system worrying about how I should. (Of course, I expect my distribution to include a media /player/ -- that's something else entirely.)

Oh, climb down from that ledge before you hurt yourself.

You don't have to have anything to do with the mp3 store. Its a feature, not a requirement.
You can install anything you want, and buy music any way you want, or not buy at all.

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%.

[CannonballHead]

Remember, it is free as in libre, not gratis.

According to whom?

Your comment about "real" Linux users is basically the attitude that turns off a lot of people from even listening to reasonable arguments about free (libre) software.

Irony

[halfaperson]

I'm no Ubuntu fan really, but I find it quite funny how the GNOME devs are famous for not giving a fuck about their users opinions, and still they're somehow outraged when someone doesn't give a fuck about theirs.

I still like ubuntu

[ilsaloving]

I put ubuntu on one of my laptops because it Just Worked(tm). That was version 9.04. Everything on the machine worked, and it even handled setting up the broadcom wifi firmware for me so I didn't have to futz with fwcutter, et al.

I've been upgrading steadily ever since. At this point in time, I've been let down more often by the hardware itself (two HD failures and now the CPU is dying...) than by Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is stable, reliable, and the single most user friendly linux distro I have ever used, and it keeps getting better. It lets me do what I need to do without getting in my way so I have more time left over for other inconsequential things like... oh... my life.

I just don't get all this indignation regarding a company that is trying to put out a viable consumer friendly OS for free, while trying to make enough money (in an honest, not privacy invading way) so that it can continue to do so.

Re:Why Slashdotters no longer love Ubuntu

[Local ID10T]

You can't give people the freedom to make changes, only to complain when you don't like the changes they've made.

Of course I can. Just because you are free to implement whatever changes you choose, does not mean that I am no longer free to disagree with your choices, or that I am not free to attempt to change your mind.

You do not have to follow my desires, that is your freedom. I do not have to like your choices, that is my freedom.

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%.

[marcello_dl]

s/supply/repackaging an improved and differentiated version/

Anyway judging Canonical is irrelevant, they are free to do what they want and you are free to follow them or follow others or fork. Your document aren't hostages of canonical choices. That's the good thing of FOSS.

What if

[TopSpin]

I've never heard of Banshee. I suspect most people haven't. Now it will appear with every new Ubuntu 11.04 install.

What if the amount of money heading to Gnome (the 25% of Amazon's 10% kickback) is actually greater than the 100% Banshee has been donating? What if it's many times greater? What if this, in part, also means that Ubuntu gets to keep its doors open? What if folks made lots of Amazon purchases via Ubuntu's Banshee instead of inventing.... yet another ... reason to act like malcontents?

Canonical needs to figure out a business model that amounts to more than Shuttleworth’s good graces. There are no profitable desktop Linux desktop publishers. That is not a workable long term situation. In 2008 Canonical said Ubuntu had 3-5 years to get profitable. If the low end of that range means anything then Times Up! as they say..

"insane"... Slashdot's editorial judgement is actually regressing.

Re:Flamebait

[retchdog]

fair enough. let's see if i have this gordian knot figured.

the banshee team default position is to take nothing for themselves and pass on the full referrer fee, i.e. 0.1 of banshee amazon purchases, to GNOME. banshee's amazon service steps on Canonical's ubuntu one service, so Canonical didn't like that and offered to give 25% to GNOME, making it 0.025 of banshee amazon purchases. banshee was pissed and wanted the amazon part removed completely from the ubuntu distro. Canonical is overriding this (it's their distro and the code is Free) but as a sop is kicking in 25% of their ubuntu one profit to GNOME.

apparently banshee has no financial self-interest in this matter, while Canonical has their own. if Canonical went with the banshee default, GNOME would get 0.1 of all amazon's gross profit through banshee (call it AGross). under Canonical's first offer, GNOME would get 0.025*AGross. under banshee's (imho rather hissy) counter-offer GNOME would get _nothing at all_ from ubuntu users. Canonical overrides this and makes the "benevolent dictator" offer that GNOME gets 0.025*AGross plus 25% of Canonical's net profit from ubuntu one, for a total of 0.025*AGross+0.25*UNet.

Yeah, Canonical are being assholes here (and it's worth noting, taking a very large middleman cut). However, GNOME's worst outcome would have been Banshee's counteroffer. The banshee default, which is 0.1*Agross, would be best for GNOME if UNet0.3AGross. I do find the latter VERY unlikely, so yeah, GNOME is getting shafted relative to the banshee default. On the other hand, they are doing better than if banshee had run their scorched earth policy, and Canonical has (imho) earned some soft social capital by offering a user-friendly linux and is thus delivering new money to GNOME.

here is the run-down: canonical benefits; banshee gets screwed but loses nothing in terms of cash; GNOME... well, it really depends on how big the buying-music-through-linux market is. i wouldn't personally be surprised if ubuntu quadruples this market, so GNOME may well pull out ahead.

in the bigger picture, it does seem a bit unfair in retrospect that novell (the banshee sponsor) fore went the first cut of these banshee-deals. on the other hand, they're novell...