Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu still isn't free software

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#11

Post by ckastner »

nippples wrote: post #6
jwfxpr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe this is the only rational explanation.

The other, non-trademark-containing software, is distributed under a FOSS license (both the source and the binary derivative), and I don't see how anyone could be legally forced to rebuild the binary.

The copyright situation is clear, the legal leg this is standing on seems to be the trademark situation.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#12

Post by delonia »

This is Matthew Garrett (mjg59), and he has a hate against the Ubuntu project that goes back several years.

The way he works is that he finds something that he interprets as questionable (his words: "it can be interpreted as meaning"), and then starts screaming because he needs ASAP an official reply.

The climate-change deniers employ this technique and you get ordinary people questioning the scientists.

His employer should comment on this since what CoreOS is doing and what is offered by Ubuntu Core do overlap.

These posts are not personal posts anymore.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#13

Post by delonia »

Jonnax wrote: post #8

Could 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'…

This guy tries to confuse people about this and at the end what will remain is a negative impression on Ubuntu.

The whole "story" is just an interpretation of his about some wording, and he shouts because his own interpretation goes too far away.

He has written many similar articles against Ubuntu and they tend to be dubious.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#14

Post by pietroalbini »

Jonnax wrote: post #8

Could 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'…

The Ubuntu images OVH ships (I assume they're the european provider) are bundled with an old, unpatched kernel and you need to install the one from the repos manually.

Other than being unpatched/possibly insecure, it has a few features disabled: the last time I managed an OVH instance, it wasn't possible to run docker over their kernel.

Of course Canonical doesn't want that image to be called "Ubuntu", and as an user I don't want that either.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#15

Post by Illniyar »

I fail to see the problem- either don't change the image in a meaningful way or recompile without the name ubuntu and call it something else.

Seems ok to me. Also, using the Ubuntu name for a product not made by canonical without permission is against trademark law, so the argument made seems moot.

A few restrictions does not automatically make something "not free". In fact copyleft "free software" has tons of restrictions.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#16

Post by delonia »

pietroalbini wrote: post #10

I guess the Canonical announce is the follow-up of the tweet the OVH owner sent a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459

That person from OVH is a character.

You can install an "Ubuntu" on OVH, but the kernel is a modified kernel. When you try to install standard services that are meant to work with Ubuntu, they do not work with the "OVH Ubuntu".

Apparently, Ubuntu contacted OVH to make the Ubuntu kernel closer to the stock Ubuntu kernel but OVH did not bother to do anything about it.

Then, Ubuntu told them that they break the trademark and one of the things they can do is get a license for the existing messy "OHV handicapped ubuntu", so that they keep providing this mess.

At that point, the founder of OVH went on twitter and a shitstorm ensued.

The whole affair reflects badly on the OVH founder. But many people will keep another impression in their mind.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#17

Post by lorenzhs »

delonia wrote: post #12

This is Matthew Garrett (mjg59), and he has a hate against the Ubuntu project that goes back several years. The way he works is that he finds something that he interprets as questionable (his words: "it can be interpreted as meaning"), and then starts screaming because he needs ASAP an official reply. The climate-change deniers employ this technique and you get ordinary people questioning the scientists. His employer…

You're not being fair to him. He asked Canonical for clarification multiple times, and they refuse to clarify what their IP policy actually entails. He's given them years to do so, and they haven't. That's not "needs ASAP an official reply".

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#18

Post by delonia »

Illniyar wrote: post #15

I fail to see the problem- either don't change the image in a meaningful way or recompile without the name ubuntu and call it something else. Seems ok to me. Also, using the Ubuntu name for a product not made by canonical without permission is against trademark law, so the argument made seems moot. A few restrictions does not automatically make something "not free". In fact copyleft "free software" has tons of restri…

That post was written by Matthew Garrett, and he has written many similar posts against Ubuntu over the years.

His previous rant was about the snaps in Ubuntu. That they are not fully secure (contained) because Linux distributions are still based X11. It's a one-sided hate directed specifically against Ubuntu.

If only someone revealed to him Oracle's "Unbreakable" Linux and http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulle...

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#19

Post by vader1 »

pietroalbini wrote: post #14
Jonnax wrote: post #8

Could 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'…

The Ubuntu images OVH ships (I assume they're the european provider) are bundled with an old, unpatched kernel and you need to install the one from the repos manually. Other than being unpatched/possibly insecure, it has a few features disabled: the last time I managed an OVH instance, it wasn't possible to run docker over their kernel. Of course Canonical doesn't want that image to be called "Ubuntu", and as an user…

FYI, apart from the kernel, OVH's "Ubuntu" image also adds their SSH key to the root user (http://help.ovh.co.uk/InstallOvhKey) and pre-installs some monitoring daemon.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#20

Post by grifferz »

delonia wrote: post #13
Jonnax wrote: post #8

Could 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'…

This guy tries to confuse people about this and at the end what will remain is a negative impression on Ubuntu. The whole "story" is just an interpretation of his about some wording, and he shouts because his own interpretation goes too far away. He has written many similar articles against Ubuntu and they tend to be dubious.

But Canonical refuses to clarify what you would have to remove in order to make Ubuntu redistributable without asking their permission.

In fact, going further, Mark Shuttleworth has plainly stated that there is no process or tool which can ever be made that would turn an Ubuntu install into something that could be redistributed, unless permission is first sought on a case by case basis:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-Novem...

If Canonical wanted people to be able to redistribute something based on Ubuntu, that does not infringe any Canonical trademark, then it would be very simple for them to enable that. But they don't appear to want to enable that. And without that right, Ubuntu is not free software.

Note that Canonical relies on the right to redistribute a modified version of Debian in order for Ubuntu to exist at all.

Post reply on HN