Tell me more ×
Ask Ubuntu is a question and answer site for Ubuntu users and developers. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite
1

Ubuntu One for Music source code on launchpad contains libGoogleAnalytics.jar which is proprietary. The license declares Gnu Affero Gpl license. Is this legal and why is it done?

share|improve this question
Btw the gnu agpl requires source code for the networked service to be availabile. Not the case in Ubuntu One, is it? – daithib8 Jun 30 '12 at 22:36
OK, it may be legal if the binary is not released under gpl, but surely it should declare a proprietary license on the project page? – daithib8 Jun 30 '12 at 23:18
Why? The reason for keeping Ubuntu One server proprietary is that competitors might steal an advantage. This cannot apply in this case. – daithib8 Jun 30 '12 at 23:23

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote

Well, to cover your licensing query, anyone who contributes code to Ubuntu One, and several other Canonical projects, must sign a contribution agreement which contains the following clause:

Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also license the Contribution under the terms of the license or licenses which We are using for the Material on the Submission Date.

This means Canonical can release it simultaneously under as many different licences as they like, as long as one of them is the license the code was initially contributed under. So the source code on Launchpad might be AGPL, but the binary on Android Market isn't necessarily. So this situation is exactly why the contribution agreement exists.

Note that the libGoogleAnalytics.jar has just been removed from the launchpad source, see this bug report.

share|improve this answer
Thanks, but my confusion is about why analytics is in the source code. I changed the question to reflect this. – daithib8 Jun 30 '12 at 22:59
Ah, I didn't realise it was actually in the source. But apparently it's just been removed. Answer updated. – Alistair Buxton Jun 30 '12 at 23:04
it has been removed from files but not from music. but I think I understand your answer: if the binary was released under the gpl then it would be unlawful? – daithib8 Jun 30 '12 at 23:12
Yes, probably. But there's no reason to believe that the binary is released under GPL, since Canonical has a license to release it under whatever license they want. Putting that jar file onto launchpad in a AGPL project is probably not Ok though. – Alistair Buxton Jun 30 '12 at 23:15

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.