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

31–40 of 102 posts

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#31

Post by vacri »

grifferz wrote: post #27
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…

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…

You're not even being internally consistent. In your first statement you say that he's made it clear that 'nothing' can be done to avoid asking permission.

In the second statement you say he's being evasive on the same issue.

So, give me a few links of these 'many times', because you're not exactly being the most reliable source yourself.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#32

Post by morganvachon »

leni536 wrote: post #7
onli wrote: post #2

Read 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.

Came here to say this. Besides, Ubuntu has never been close to being a fully Free (Libre) distribution; like most other Linux based distros, it has a mix of Free software and closed source software and firmware.

I don't disagree with Mr. Garrett's opinion that Canonical is in the wrong here, rather I'd say he's practically giving them a pass. Not only does Canonical try to impose policies and demands that violate the licenses of the software they used to build their OS, they try to claim ownership of said software (by slapping their trademark on the finished bundle) and bully any entity that wishes to exercise the rights those licenses afford them.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#34

Post by bryanlarsen »

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…

"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"

Mark Shuttleworth is referring to the process to redistribute something called "Ubuntu".

You could certainly create and distribute a tool that would strip trademarks from Ubuntu, and distribute both that tool and your hacked version of Ubuntu, as long as you don't call it Ubuntu. Nobody's willing to do that simply because a version of Ubuntu not called Ubuntu isn't worth much to most people interested in doing such a thing.

If OVH called their hacked-up version of Ubuntu "OVHuntu" they'd lose some of their customers to competitors who have a "real" Ubuntu install option.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#37

Post by pietroalbini »

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.

Wow, didn't know that. Good thing I usually block root access.

Thank you!

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#38

Post by lorenzhs »

vacri wrote: post #29
lorenzhs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 spr…

No, because Canonical's requirements go beyond trademark law, which has a notion of non-infringing use. Canonical use copyright law to force you to remove every mention of any of their trademarks, and have publicly stated that there is no tool that can remove all such references and you basically always have to ask for permission (see Mark Shuttleworth's comment, which was linked elsewhere in this discussion). That certainly doesn't meet the requirements of free software.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#39

Post by pjmlp »

_cmmn wrote: post #28
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.

Really? I am yet to see a Mint installation live.

Around me and our customers it is all about Ubuntu and Red-Hat.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#40

Post by vertex-four »

vacri wrote: post #31
grifferz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're not even being internally consistent. In your first statement you say that he's made it clear that 'nothing' can be done to avoid asking permission. In the second statement you say he's being evasive on the same issue. So, give me a few links of these 'many times', because you're not exactly being the most reliable source yourself.

Canonical are being evasive on the issue. mjg shows that because we cannot be sure of what Canonical believe and what they will put their lawyers towards, we have to ask Canonical's permission to redistribute Ubuntu no matter what we do to it.

EDIT: screwed up a name.

Post reply on HN