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

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#51

Post by onli »

morganvachon wrote: post #32
leni536 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where did they ever do that? Where did they ever bully an entity that made a derivative without using the term Ubuntu, where did they wrongly not give permission, where did they state ownership wrongly to sabotage another project?

The only times I saw something in that direction was with modified Ubuntu images being called Ubuntu, where their motivation is clear: protecting their image and their users. If that is their only goal, then I understand why they want to keep this tool to achieve it.

I agree that the terms should be formulated clearer, and always having to ask canonical for a derivative is clearly them claiming rights they do not have. I'm not even sure they do that. If they did, would that mean they are a bully doing bad things? No.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#52

Post by fredgrott »

lorenzhs wrote: post #38
vacri wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

no, in fact it does not go beyond trademark law..ask a trademark lawyer dude..

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#53

Post by billsix »

qplex wrote: post #47

The thing is (at least of late 2016) that Debian > Ubuntu, and nobody wants to fork a fork that is worse than the parent.

Ironically, Ubuntu is the only distribution I can't figure out how to install on my desktop (I run debian, centos, and gentoo just fine). Some problem with refresh rates or resolution of my monitor, so Ubuntu's installer can't start.

5-15 years ago, I recommended Ubuntu to others because of the ease of their installers. These days I recommend Debian.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#54

Post by piotrjurkiewicz »

pjc50 wrote: post #42
piotrjurkiewicz wrote: post #36

Please, not this clown again. > For avoidance of doubt, any comments arguing this point [my point of view] will be replaced with the phrase "Fart fart fart". https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html

That was an entertaining way of dealing with the absurdities of gamergate.

Replacing comments which you apparently can't refute with the phrase "Fart fart fart". Indeed, very entertaining and mature.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#55

Post by vertex-four »

vacri wrote: post #49
vertex-four wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Mark Shuttleworth has made it clear that in Canonical's opinion ". Forgive me for treating the two entities as one and the same, but the point remains the same in the GP's comment. First, Canonical's position is "made clear", and secondly it's evasive. You guys will do amazing dances to avoid sticking to a line of reasoning. You'll pan Shuttleworth for not giving you the answers you want, and then turn around and cl…

Yes, Canonical's position is made clear that you have to ask them or they might decide that to screw you over in the future. They've made this position clear by refusing to clarify how they would respond, and therefore requiring that you ask them on a case-by-case basis.

Sorry, I screwed up a name, I'm not close to this issue and didn't realise the blog poster is not named Mark, and that Mark is the head of Ubuntu.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#56

Post by jnbiche »

pietroalbini wrote: post #37
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.

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

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

Edit: Ah, my bad, you meant your SSH config, I misunderstood.

I assume you're talking about blocking the document root of your web server, because at least on stock Ubuntu, you can't 100% block the root user from accessing anything (e.g., on Linux, a logged-in root can always use CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE to override permissions). Among other things, that's why a rooted Android phone can access apps that even the app developer doesn't want them to.

Here, they're talking about setting up an ssh key for the root user somewhere that the ssh server is aware of. They certainly won't put it in a directory like a document root such as `/www`. Probably they put it in `/etc/ssh`.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#57

Post by detaro »

jnbiche wrote: post #56
pietroalbini wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Wow, didn't know that. Good thing I usually block root access. Edit: Ah, my bad, you meant your SSH config, I misunderstood. I assume you're talking about blocking the document root of your web server, because at least on stock Ubuntu, you can't 100% block the root user from accessing anything (e.g., on Linux, a logged-in root can always use CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE to override permissions). Among other things, that's why…

I'd assume they are talking about the typical practice of disallowing ssh logins as root (instead logging in as a user and then using sudo for administrative tasks)

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#58

Post by arca_vorago »

I have to admit I was (and am) anti-ubuntu, because of stuff like this from Mark and Canonical, but for a while it was the only distro that just worked with no problems on my work macbook pro, so I succumbed for practicalities sake. Now that I am working on my own projects full-time, I have switched to fedora on my desktop.

My main reasoning as a sysadmin for distro choice goes like this:

For server, debian, centos, opensuse. For a business that has strict support requirements, debian can become ubuntu, centos can become rhel, and opensuse can become suse.

For desktop, it's generally preferable to me to be running in the same ecosystem as the servers you are supporting in the majority. So if debian on servers, debian for desktop, but being sometimes less reliable on desktops, ubuntu makes a good replacement. If centos on servers, fedora on workstation. You get the idea.

Of course you should pick what works best for you, the point being here to this longwinded comment is that, if you don't like ubuntu but like the ubuntu base system, I suggest you pain your way through debian instead, which is a much freer distro, but often doesn't hold your hand nearly as much either.

Remember, Stallman was/is right.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#59

Post by vacri »

lorenzhs wrote: post #38
vacri wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Point me to the bit in the Canonical IP policy, not the bit in MJG's opinion, which goes beyond trademark law.

https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual...

The relevant stanza is "IF you associate with the trademarks THEN you need approval and certification. OTHERWISE just remove the trademarks. IF you need that approval and certification, THEN you need licensing".

Where does it go beyond trademark law? They even later on explicitly state you can parody them, just don't suggest endorsement without a license.

> see Mark Shuttleworth's comment, which was linked elsewhere in this discussion

The only link of Shuttleworth's in this thread is: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-Novem...

In that link, nowhere does he say "there is no tool". He says that Canonical is not going to do the ongoing work required. Nothing is stopping someone else from making the tool and keeping it up to date. He does say that there is no work that will change Ubuntu's position on derivatives.

He does give a 'boiled down' summary, which you're taking out of context. As someone talking about licenses should know, 'summaries' don't count, only the actual wording does. He's made a comment on a mailing list, not a formal presentation of policy.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#60

Post by lorenzhs »

fredgrott wrote: post #52
lorenzhs wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

no, in fact it does not go beyond trademark law..ask a trademark lawyer dude..

While I cannot claim personal experience in trademark law, the US Patent and Trademark Office's website is pretty clear here. Quoting from https://www.uspto.gov/page/about-trademark-infringement:

> To support a trademark infringement claim in court, a plaintiff must prove that it owns a valid mark, that it has priority (its rights in the mark(s) are "senior" to the defendant's), and that the defendant's mark is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers about the source or sponsorship of the goods or services offered under the parties' marks.

Note the last bit, "is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers about the source or sponsorship of the goods or services offered". Canonical's IP policy requires removal of all mentions of the trademark, even if they do not meet these requirements.

Post reply on HN