Purely your own personal opinion. And not a very well considered or provable one.
Since when opinion need to be provable? It's opinion for a reason, not a fact, we are talking about products with taste from consumers, not a meteor 12k light years away from earth that needs proof for it's existence. Besides that comment was for zen, for his comment -"Forget his desktop products, which I think are mostly silly.
". If you think I should be giving proof for my opinion, I would love to have proof for products of canonical being silly.
Incorrect. If that is your interpretation of FOSS you're sadly mistaken. No matter which FOSS license (there are several BTW) you're misinterpreting here.
Not at all. Redhat and many other OSS software providers are using Open source for their own walled garden, many of the open source SAAS services are not available unless user purchase the subscription or license. FSF and GNU never took objection on that part of OSS but more on the SAAS nature of the OSS that restricts people form code. You can go to GNU for that article from stallman. There is a reason why stallman is against OSS. He doesn't oppose paywall, he opposes paywall that restricts the code distribution. If the canonical always distributed the code of their paywall and product behind paywall, on which point you are going to take objection? Community taste of not liking their products? that's just not rational at all.
Hard to say. You'll need to be much more specific as to what you're talking about him doing - as well as which license you're referring to - before this can be discussed with any degree of intelligence or rationality.
Canonical is not losing grounds on the GPL. They have a community that keeps eye on such things. I would be interested to see even stallman finding violation of GPL from canonical. All the ubuntu code is open, even unity, and few other commercial apps included.
Again, your own very personal opinion - and not a very well considered or provable one.
Same like my first answer.
1) Give me proof for Canonical violating GPL.
2) Give me proof for canonical products being silly. And also what qualifies for being silly and how one should not be silly, examples etc.
3) What needs to be proven in order to show you how the haters of canonical and unity, don't contribute positive to the growth of respective software other than the attacks on unity, ubuntu and canonical?
KDE spokesperson talking against ubuntu policies just because ubuntu's mobile product is in competition with their kde product, shows nothing but a piss poor attitude to drive away people from ubuntu. That's enough for me to say ubuntu or say canonical is pissing off hardcore community, that dont like design changes, money making model of any other FOSS company.