[Consortium] problem about inclusion of Ubuntu
daniel at 64studio.com
Tue Mar 28 07:50:09 EST 2006
>>Personally I think the possibility of Ubuntu or any other Linux centered
>>dist, institution or project being ostracized for *any* reason is quite
>>strange. Even more so, because they are involved in a successful
> Second that.
Third that (if you can say it :-) ) In fact I don't believe Canonical is
profitable yet; it's funded by personal earnings from the dot-com
years. No different from how Paul Davis funded Ardour and JACK
development for so long.
Although 'high-net-worth' individuals attract attention, I don't see why
a free software company controlled by an individual is any worse than a
company controlled by VCs, bankers or by shareholders. Companies are
simply not democratic entities, and it would be naive of us to ignore
all the Linux-related development that goes on inside commercial
Ingo Molnar's kernel work at Red Hat for instance. Red Hat has a market
capitalisation of well over five billion US dollars, making it many
times richer than Mark or Canonical (unless he has a few more billion
dollars hidden away somewhere).
>>In the past serious decisions have been made by the Board of Directors
>>which is a private invite only mailing list with a smaller portion of
>>the original members included on it.
On the basis of one representative nominated by each member project. The
current Management Board members, listed on the Contact page of the
Andrea Glorioso (AGNULA)
Patrick Shirkey (Boost Hardware)
Richard Bown (Fervent Software)
Christian Schaller (GStreamer)
Jan Depner (JAMin)
Ron Parker (Mirror Image)
Steve Harris (plugin.org.uk)
Chris Cannam (Rosegarden)
Daniel Wagner (FreeBob)
You'll notice that I'm not on there (as I thought there would be a
conflict of interest if a director or former director would also be on
the Management Board - you can't supervise yourself). So my opinion is
merely an opinion.
More information about the Consortium