Ubuntu still isn't free software • Hacker News Board

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#91

Post by mjg59 » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

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?

Mark Shuttleworth has told me that they assert copyright over all their binaries and that this restriction is intended to apply regardless of trademarks.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#92

Post by mamon » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 8:44 PM UTC

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?

It could, but there's probably another explanation: if you can't use original binaries then you can't point to Ubuntu package repositories in your own distro.

Maintaining those repositories is a part of Canonical's competitive advantage, if anyone could use it then any distribution could easily get at least as good as Ubuntu, which would ruin the Canonical's business.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#93

Post by mhall119 » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 8:46 PM UTC

grifferz wrote: post #69

bryanlarsen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Mark Shuttleworth is referring to the process to redistribute something called "Ubuntu". The email from Mark seems extremely clear that Canonical's position is that there is no way to distribute a derivative of Ubuntu without 1) joining the Ubuntu community, and 2) asking for permission to distribute. It does not clarify that all you need to do is remove Canonical's trademarks. It flat out just says that you can't di…

> possibly by means of having his upload privileges to Ubuntu reinstated. That seems to be an indication of him being willing to do it.

He wouldn't need upload rights, he could do the work and ask an Ubuntu Developer to review and sponsor it. In fact, anybody can contribute anything to Ubuntu this way, doesn't matter if you're an old kernel hacker or a total newbie.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#94

Post by sctb » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 10:37 PM UTC

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.

Hacker News is not a platform for carrying out personal vendettas, as this account has been using it primarily for. We ban accounts that abuse the site like this, so please stop.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#95

Post by trademarklaw777 » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 10:39 PM UTC

lorenzhs wrote: post #67

rtkwe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a letter of the law sort of way Ubuntu could still be following that. You're completely free to redistribute an unmodified or modified version so long as your modifications include stripping the Ubuntu marks. Of course that's very much against the spirit of the freedoms. It's a tricky position trying to build a company around OSS free software. On the one hand you have the principals of free software on the other…

Well that's the point that Matthew has been making all these years. The problem is that Canonical say "you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries", no matter whether the use of the trademark is infringing (neither Matthew nor I have an argument with that, they need to protect their trademarks) or not (this is where they use copyright law to requir…

Trademark law can vary. As I understand it can be easy to lose a trademark if you let it become generic.

So it may not violate trademark law but it could dilute a trademark.

Also the section on packaging for distribution in the GNU Philosophy says requests to remove logos and names, i.e. trademarks, before a downstream party can distribute the rest is acceptable.

As I understand it, many of the most useful packages are from upstream anyway. It's mostly Canonical metapackages that define Upstream packages to install that are in question and they contain canonical logos and names

It states a couple times at least that upholding the core tenets are key. Ubuntu isn't creating scenario such that distribution is now impossible, or claiming control over the upstream which are arguably the most valuable.

Could be a good project. A Canonical free "Ubuntu" that replaces their metapackages yet results in a nearly identical OS. Problem solved.

Really one could probably just write some Ansible to do this to Debian these days.

Regardless, a solution is readily in reach for sufficiently skilled users. Given that, I have a hard time taking this as nothing more than kicking up dust for the sake of being right

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#96

Post by mhall119 » Sat, Dec 03, 2016, 2:03 PM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #55

vacri wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> 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.

Welcome to law. You're not going to get a specific answer to a generic question.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#97

Post by _cmmn » Sat, Dec 03, 2016, 4:56 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #39

_cmmn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm in Europe and even some non-tech know what a Linux Mint is. And a lot of newbies I help to install Linux on their laptops explicitly ask for it as well. Many are lost with Ubuntu/Unity interface and are much more happy with Cinnamon on Mint.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#98

Post by jedisct1 » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 8:54 AM UTC

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.

That page was written circa 2007. Unfortunately, the UK version of the website is terribly outdated.

OVH does not install any SSH keys on the servers.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#99

Post by tptacek » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 6:00 AM UTC

grzm wrote: post #80

geofft wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection. You are obligated to take seriously the claim that this is about ethics in journalism, when it simultaneously is and isn't, and yet 'piotrjurkiewicz feels no obligation to tak…

If you can figure out a way to make introduce your general argument without referencing anti-semitism, you will be much less open to hijacking of the conversation in just the way you observe here. Especially in online discussions, introducing flame-war inducing topics even in passing is likely to derail the conversation.

I don't think you read his comment very carefully. He was quoting Sartre, about trolling. He doesn't get to choose what Sartre wrote about!

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#100

Post by grzm » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 6:11 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #99

grzm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can figure out a way to make introduce your general argument without referencing anti-semitism, you will be much less open to hijacking of the conversation in just the way you observe here. Especially in online discussions, introducing flame-war inducing topics even in passing is likely to derail the conversation.

I don't think you read his comment very carefully. He was quoting Sartre, about trolling. He doesn't get to choose what Sartre wrote about!

I understand 'geofft was quoting Sartre (and it's a great quote). I'm arguing that while the quote might be useful and perfectly appropriate to the context, that it's a poor choice to introduce in an online discussion where the interlocutors are already adversarial. Anti-semitism is accidental to the argument, but is easy for someone to uncharitably grab on to, derailing the discussion and leading to a flame war. 'geofft even points this out:

You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection.

If the goal is to have a useful discussion, if you can come up with different quote or analogy that does not include anti-semitism, in my opinion the discussion would be better served.