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

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#21

Post by peller »

vader1 wrote: post #19
pietroalbini wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is adding root SSH keys common practice in the hosting world?

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#22

Post by verroq »

peller wrote: post #21
vader1 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is adding root SSH keys common practice in the hosting world?

The reality is that they own your hardware and can do whatever they want. But most hosts are more subtle about this.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#23

Post by lorenzhs »

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.

From a quick scroll through your comment history here, it seems that you have a personal agenda to defend Canonical and defame Matthew Garret. You have been called out on it before, yet you continue to spread this misinformation. It seems like the person who "tries confuse people about this" isn't Matthew Garret, it's you.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10614110 is a particularly classy ad-hominem attack on him.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#24

Post by vacri »

grifferz wrote: post #20
delonia wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/archi…

Where in the four freedoms does it say that a bit of elbow-grease is a disqualifier? Just because Ubuntu doesn't have a spoonfeeding script to do it all for you doesn't make it 'not free'. Shuttleworth points out in that link of yours that keeping tabs on such a thing and providing an auto-stripping script is a waste of their resources and of dubious use to anyone but MJG.

The truth of the matter is, that if you want to use any component of ubuntu, it's easy enough to just recompile without the trademarks and redistribute. If you want to use the whole thing but with minor changes, either just talk to them to get a license, or put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#26

Post by lorenzhs »

vacri wrote: post #24
grifferz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/archi…

Where in the four freedoms does it say that a bit of elbow-grease is a disqualifier? Just because Ubuntu doesn't have a spoonfeeding script to do it all for you doesn't make it 'not free'. Shuttleworth points out in that link of yours that keeping tabs on such a thing and providing an auto-stripping script is a waste of their resources and of dubious use to anyone but MJG. The truth of the matter is, that if you want…

> The truth of the matter is, that if you want to use any component of ubuntu, it's easy enough to just recompile without the trademarks and redistribute. If you want to use the whole thing but with minor changes, either just talk to them to get a license, or put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks.

That goes against the four freedoms of free software, though:

Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)

It also goes beyond what is covered by trademark law (due to absence of a concept of non-infringing use). That's exactly mjg59's point, btw.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#27

Post by grifferz »

vacri wrote: post #24
grifferz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/archi…

Where in the four freedoms does it say that a bit of elbow-grease is a disqualifier? Just because Ubuntu doesn't have a spoonfeeding script to do it all for you doesn't make it 'not free'. Shuttleworth points out in that link of yours that keeping tabs on such a thing and providing an auto-stripping script is a waste of their resources and of dubious use to anyone but MJG. The truth of the matter is, that if you want…

put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks

Mark Shuttleworth has made it clear that in Canonical's opinion there is nothing you can do that would let you skip the step of asking their permission on a case by case basis.

Canonical will not answer a straight-forward question such as "if every instance of every registered Canonical trademark were removed, would that be sufficient?"

This sort of thing has been asked many times.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#28

Post by _cmmn »

logronoide wrote: post #3

Canonical 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.

Mint is already killing them on the desktop, how long before a "Mint server" arrives?

And yes, Debian for servers, but some people wants more up to date software.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#29

Post by vacri »

lorenzhs wrote: post #26
vacri wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in the four freedoms does it say that a bit of elbow-grease is a disqualifier? Just because Ubuntu doesn't have a spoonfeeding script to do it all for you doesn't make it 'not free'. Shuttleworth points out in that link of yours that keeping tabs on such a thing and providing an auto-stripping script is a waste of their resources and of dubious use to anyone but MJG. The truth of the matter is, that if you want…

> The truth of the matter is, that if you want to use any component of ubuntu, it's easy enough to just recompile without the trademarks and redistribute. If you want to use the whole thing but with minor changes, either just talk to them to get a license, or put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks. That goes against the four freedoms of free software, though: Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3…

You missed the bit "or put in the elbow-grease yourself". Software can be free yet still require you to remove their trademarks. Look at pretty much any other distro, for example. You aren't asking to use the software, you're asking to use the trademark. Put in the work to remove the trademark yourself, and the software violates none of the four freedoms.

Elsewhere in this thread you're pinging someone else about spreading misinformation. You're doing the same thing yourself.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#30

Post by noselasd »

grabcocque wrote: post #25

The idea that it's impossible to distribute an Ubuntu-based distribution will surely come as a surprise to Mint.

There is a big difference in basing your distro on Ubuntu, but naming it something else and basing your distro on Ubuntu and still calling it Ubuntu.
Post reply on HN