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

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#61

Post by rtkwe »

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…

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 you have the fact that people distributing crapified version of your software with your name still on it means you're getting a lot of support and complaints that cost money to deal with even if it's just to determine that it's Crap-Ubuntu and not the version you've made.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#62

Post by kefka »

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!

Yeah, effectively, disabling sudo and setting root's shell to /bin/false does a good job in locking the system down.

Except for root exploits.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#63

Post by jnbiche »

detaro wrote: post #57
jnbiche wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

Thanks, I didn't pick that up, although I often do that on my SSH config. For some reason, "block root access" in lieu of "block root log-in" just didn't register for me as referring to SSH config. Thank you for explaining instead of just downvoting.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#64

Post by grigjd3 »

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.

Mint 17 was vastly more compatible as a desktop VM than Ubuntu 14.04, so I definitely used it when I needed to test code with gcc 4.8.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#65

Post by geofft »

piotrjurkiewicz wrote: post #54
pjc50 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course, the point is that they can't be refuted. They're not claims for which a refutation is a well-defined concept.

Sartre once wrote this about anti-Semites, but it applies equally well here (and, to be clear, I am making no implication about whether the people using the same tactics today are also anti-Semites, just that they're using the same tactics):

"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side."

The only winning move, for those of us who believe in words, is not to play.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#66

Post by lorenzhs »

vacri wrote: post #59
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…

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…

Gladly: 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 means that if you don't associate it with the trademarks, you have to remove and replace the trademarks AND recompile the source. Note that this covers any use of the trademarks, not just infringing ones. You gloss over that case as "just remove the trademark", but trademark law doesn't require that if the use isn't infringing. So Canonical are using copyright law to prevent non-infringing uses of their trademarks.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#67

Post by lorenzhs »

rtkwe wrote: post #61
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…

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 require removal of the trademark, even if trademark law wouldn't require it).

Nobody's arguing that you should be allowed to take an Ubuntu image, mess it up, and distribute the result under the name Ubuntu. That would clearly infringe on Canonical's trademarks.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#68

Post by lorenzhs »

johnsea wrote: post #50

If something is called 'Ubuntu', I expect Ubuntu to be inside and not some (heavily) modified code. Wouldn't want my own open source software to be associated with a (maybe faulty) derivative either.

Quoting the article: If someone claims that something is Ubuntu when it isn't, that's probably an infringement of the trademark and it's entirely reasonable for the trademark owner to take action to protect the value associated with their trademark. But Canonical's IP policy goes much further than that - it can be interpreted as meaning[1] that you can't distribute works based on Ubuntu without paying Canonical for the privilege, even if you call it something other than Ubuntu.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#69

Post by grifferz »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #34
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…

"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 distribute a derivative without permission.

Mark's email is a response to one asking for guidance on what would have to be removed in order to do perform non-infringing distribution. It doesn't ask Ubuntu to do this work of removal. It asks Ubuntu to identify what work needs to be done. mjg59 suggests that he will do the work, possibly by means of having his upload privileges to Ubuntu reinstated. That seems to be an indication of him being willing to do it.

The reply then comes from Mark stating that there is no work that could be done to enable this.

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.

That appears to be the sort of thing that mjg59 proposed to create, but was told that would never be allowed. Mark's email is literally a response to a request for clarity on what needs to be done to not infringe, i.e. how to do what you are suggesting is permitted.

Re: Ubuntu still isn't free software

#70

Post by piotrjurkiewicz »

geofft wrote: post #65
piotrjurkiewicz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course, the point is that they can't be refuted. They're not claims for which a refutation is a well-defined concept. Sartre once wrote this about anti-Semites, but it applies equally well here (and, to be clear, I am making no implication about whether the people using the same tactics today are also anti-Semites, just that they're using the same tactics): "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware o…

Comparing people who were trying to remind what the whole affair was really about (corruption in journalism) to antisemites.

Well, it was hard to beat mjg59, but it seems you've managed to do so. He just censored them, in a childish way.

Post reply on HN