Home / ubuntu / Questions / 476608
In Process
Bruno Pereira
Asked: 2014-06-05 00:05:52 +0800 CST

Is Ubuntu MAAS free?

  • 772

Ubuntu MAAS, very cool, awesome in fact, looks like a unique tool for several jobs.

It looks free, but part of its documentation starts already with clauses that would scare anyone with interest in it:

  • Documentation is copy righted by Canonical;
  • Documentation must be used only for non-commercial purposes;
  • If documentation is distributed within the non-commercial clause you must retain copyright;

It just sounds a lot for a guide on how to install MAAS + Juju + Openstack and that scares me a bit. Why does documentation built from the community prevent me from doing anything except look at it? We produce a guide, but I cannot take it to work and look at it or show it as a possible tool that my company would be interested in using or contributing to?

My question is then: Under what license is Ubuntu MAAS distributed and what would be the reasoning for being so worried about copyrighting a simple guide like that so heavily? Is Ubuntu MAAS free?

maas

4 Answers

  1. I suspect they're just trying to stop people nicking portions of the documentation for their own nefarious purposes but no, by all measures that matter to people like us, that document is not free.

    But the MAAS packages in the main repos all use the AGPL3 license:

    MAAS is Copyright 2012 Canonical Ltd.

Canonical Ltd ("Canonical") distributes the MAAS source code
under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 ("AGPLv3").
The full text of this licence is given below.

Third-party copyright in this distribution is noted where applicable.

All rights not expressly granted are reserved.

    AGPL3 is a pretty strange license if you haven't seen it before. It's just like GPL3 except for an additional clause, paraphrased on the "Why AGPL?" GNU page:

    if you run the program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the program that it's running. If what's running there is your modified version of the program, the server's users must get the source code as you modified it.

    It's undoubtedly free but while most free software licenses let you keep website modifications to yourself, this requires you make them available. That could be important. It might be too free for your purposes. It's an interesting license.

    Will it always be free? Probably. Standard open-source logic applies here:

    • If they own the code, they could release future versions as non-free, for-money (or otherwise) releases and stop releasing under AGPL.
    • But Canonical can't stop people redistributing the current version.
    • And they couldn't stop somebody continuing development and/or redistributing a fork of the current version (provided it uses another name).

    Like a lot of project starters, Canonical gets extended permissions from contributors to its projects. I can't remember what the current name for this copyright agreement but it would make it extremely easy for Canonical to release closed-source versions of its products... But again, they can't stop the current versions from being [A]GPL.

    • 12

  2. The MAAS source code is distributed under AGPLv3. Assuming there are no additional clauses concerning distribution or usage, it becomes effectively free (even if the code needs to be compiled).

    But will further releases retain this License? Naturally no one in the community can answer this question. Even if Canonical themselves wish to retain this License, future policy changes are unpredictable (the company can be acquired, merged or simply disbanded).

    If having MAAS open sourced is crucial to your company/institution, then the wisest procedure is to legally bind Canonical into it. This would involve firming a contract by which Canonical legally commits to maintain the software and release future versions under an agreed license (or picking from a pre-determined set of licenses). In such scenario, and assuming your company is also seeded in the EU, the wisest option is the EUPL.

    My advice would be for your company/institution to contact Canonical Legal inquiring for the possibility of such a contract. Even if you do not really intend to firm such contract, their receptiveness, or lack thereof, might already tell you where they are headed.

    If your company/institution does not have the legal skills/resources to deal with these issues, I would advise you to seek help from OSOR.

    • 1

  3. The text quoted in the comment shows that at least the documentation is non-free.

    The Launchpad page for MAAS, which seems to be the most detailed source, says on 2015-05-21

    GNU Affero GPL v3, Other/Proprietary (temporary)
...
This project’s licence is proprietary.

    So it seems that MAAS is at least partially under a proprietary licence. It's hard to find out exactly what that licence might be, and it's not present in the source tree.

    Canonical seems to hold that in addition to the source code licence declared in the tree, they have other rights over software they publish, declared in http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy.

    This page talks specifically about Ubuntu, but applies to all their trademarks and other intellectual property rights and so would seem to include MAAS. It imposes some limitations on redistribution of collections of software, themes, and installer images.

    It's not clear to me exactly how they intend this to be interpreted but it does seem they believe there are further restrictions on how you can use the software beyond what's granted by the source tree's licences.

    See also, this question about selling computers with Ubuntu pre-installed and restrictions on commercial use.

    • 1

  4. You have to understand that Canonical makes a living by supporting (for money) software which is free (to distribute). This document is relevant to support MAAS, which is free. So, to address your 3 points:

    • Canonical copyright license - that's automatic anyway, as they wrote it.
    • Non-commercial use - don't compete with Canonical using Canonical resources
    • Retain copyright clause - fairly obvious, you can't just strip legal conditions.
    • -1