Ubuntu still isn't free software
mjg59.dreamwidth.org
Ubuntu still isn't free software
1–10 of 102 posts
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#2Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believing that alarmist stance:
Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu. If you need us to approve, certify or provide modified versions for redistribution you will require a licence agreement from Canonical, for which you may be required to pay. For further information, please contact us (as set out below).
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#3Canonical should be cautious about this kind of actions. They should learn the lessons from CentOS and how it impacts RedHat revenue.
RedHat has a clear and defined business model (I don't like it, but it's well defined). Nobody knows the business model of Canonical, so an Ubuntu fork/clone could kill them.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#4Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believing that alarmist stance: Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your righ…
Which pretty much reads like the "alarmist stance" could be right. "associate it with the Trademarks" seems pretty open to interpretation without a clear statement from Canonical. If it were so clear-cut they would have no reason not to provide such a statement.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#5Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believing that alarmist stance: Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your righ…
The author does not claim it isn't open source, the author claims it doesn't comply with the four freedoms.
> and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.
I believe the author specifically calls out this document themselves, and emphasises the phrase above, as being the problematic portion. And while canonical does also say "For further information, please contact us (as set out below)", they have not clarified this concern despite being contacted and asked.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#6Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believing that alarmist stance: Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your righ…
The author does not claim it isn't open source, the author claims it doesn't comply with the four freedoms. > and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. I believe the author specifically calls out this document themselves, and emphasises the phrase above, as being the problematic portion. And while canonical does also say "For further information, please contact us (as set out below)", th…
Could this possibly refer to situations where the original binaries contain trademarked content?
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#7Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believing that alarmist stance: Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your righ…
IANAL Isn't this mainly void? Many software that comes with Ubuntu is:
- Not from Canonical.
- Comes with an FOSS license that doesn't restrict redistribution of the compiled work.
- The same license forbids additional restrictions.
So in this sense I can redistribute any compiled "Ubuntu" package, at most I would need to strip trademarks.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#8Could someone explain this a bit more in detail?
Because this sounds like what Debian did with Iceweasal.
Because they modified the source of Firefox they had to remove all Firefox branding from the software.
It totally makes sense that if some cloud hosting provider modified Ubuntu and then called their image Ubuntu, any issues unrelated to the vanilla version would damage Ubuntu's reputation not the cloud provider's.
This is the same thing with Red Hat and Centos, right?
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#9Recalling back a couple of years ago when people talked about this, Ubuntu added "This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu.", resulting in that copyleft software is unaffected by the condition but permissive license must be recompiled. A rather imperfect situation, and it seems that no much has changed since 2015.
Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software
#10I guess the Canonical announce is the follow-up of the tweet the OVH owner sent a few months ago: