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: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: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.