7 ms·

VPS. Else, prohibited to use the mark “Ubuntu”

123 points by hbogert 10y ago

filleokus 10y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459
tgayton 10y ago
Keep in mind, as is mentioned in the previous discussion, this is only because OVH is distributing a modified version of Ubuntu.
- sspiff 10y ago
  As most hosts do. I've noticed the following from personal experience, but I'm pretty sure there are more out there: - OVH modifies the kernel (though users can opt for stock kernel, losing integration into OVH's monitoring infrastructure). - Scaleway modifies the runtime environment extensively, even on their bare metal servers, to provide integration / deep hooks into their APIs. They seem to be modifying the boot sequence, init system and replace the kernel. I'm not sure what Canonical's goal is - protecting their brand from uncertified, unknown quality third party extensions? Or simply monetizing? Either way, they should be careful not to be seen as a bully by the public for this kind of thing - they already have a pretty iffy reputation in the open source world, with their Unity desktop, Mir, upstart, Amazon integration, ... (I realize that most of these have been fixed or dropped - but they're an indication of intent).
  - tgayton 10y ago
    They've clarified, in their intellectual property policy[1] that this is exactly as you speculate, for quality control in relation to use of their trademarks. Canonical doesn't want someone to release a derivative which is unstable due to modification and call it "Ubuntu 16.04 LTS", therefore potentially resulting in blame being placed on them. Regardless of personal opinion, it's an interesting situation considering the differing opinions on the separation between brand IP and source code IP. [1] http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-...
  - keithpeter 10y ago
    Perhaps OVH should simply call it Blue Fin Linux or something? Or Globe Linux? Or are we talking recompilation of all the packages to remove the phrase 'ubuntu'? The latter would be much more complex. You are getting into CentOS territory with their 'North American Upstream Vendor' then.
    - pietroalbini 10y ago
      Or maybe they should stop shipping kernels without months of security patches, and advertize their broken images as "Ubuntu".
      - keithpeter 10y ago
        Suppose OVH paid the $1 per month per VPS and Canonical therefore allowed the use of the Ubuntu trade mark. Would you be fine with that? My point is that perhaps trade mark/copyright law isn't the best way to encourage vendors to update their products.
        pietroalbini 10y ago
        We don't even know what this 1€/instance is paid for: the only source we have is a tweet from the OVH founder. Maybe there was a discussion before, or maybe not, we're just speculating here. My guess is the price is for certifying the images, which also means guaranteeing the kernel has all the security patches in it. That means OVH would be able to customize the kernel to integrate it in their control panel, and the customers would get a secure and not broken Ubuntu image. The other option is to ship the stock image (and maybe put the integration in a .deb, as another person suggested here), and don't pay anything because you would be OK under the trademark policy.
        detaro 10y ago
        What's a better way for Ubuntu to do that? Given the open-source nature of the product, the trademark is the one avenue they have, and it's reputation quite important to differentiate themselves.
raverbashing 10y ago
I think it's fair, but how much OVH charges for each VM? $5 per month? I think that's a bit too much (or they'll just slap the $1 as a "Canonical Fee" and be done with it)
- fermigier 10y ago
  IMHO the problem is not if it's fair or not, but if Canonical's demand is grounded on juridically or not. OVH is a huge user of open source, and, as far as I been told by several sources, gives very little back (for instance, they have a no open source contribution policy internally). But I'd like to see the juridical arguments forbidding any hosting provider to propose a given trademarked distribution on their system.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    IANAL, but as it has been pointed out, OVH distributes a modified version of Ubuntu, not (only?) a pristine copy. As such, that may be considered a material difference, which gives Canonical a claim against OVH. Quoting a ruling, [T]he unauthorized (...) sale of materially different merchandise violates the Lanham Act because a difference in products bearing the same name confuses consumers and impinges on the local trademark holder’s goodwill.
    - PedroBatista 10y ago
      But Canonical doesn't seem to have a problem with that... as long as they get paid. The truth (IMHO): OVH changes the ISOs but wants to call it Ubuntu because it's a huge brand. Canonical smells blood in the water and wants money. Nobody is an angel here.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Canonical does have a problem with that, which is why they require OVH and other re-distributors of modified versions to submit them for approval, for which they charge. This is all in their IP policies: http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-...
jepler 10y ago
May I suggest to call it GNU, for "GNU is not Ubuntu".
StevePerkins 10y ago
OVH should really be more clear that their Ubuntu images are modified down at the kernel level, and are not "stock" Ubuntu. This is the first time I've ever heard about this. Say what you want about software patents, or asserting copyright over an API, etc. But trademark law exists entirely to prevent confusion like this, and I think it's valid. Hosts should be required to loudly disclose that images are modified, or else they should get a licensing deal and have them certified by the trademark holder. Users think they're installing "Ubuntu", and they aren't. That's not acceptable to me.
- andypants 10y ago
  I agree. I thought I had installed ubuntu recently on ovh servers, and found many files/folders in `/sys/kernel` missing. I had to google around a bit to find out that when I installed Ubuntu, it wasn't actually Ubuntu, but OVH-modified Ubuntu. I ended up having 4 servers reinstalled with stock Ubuntu.
- pietroalbini 10y ago
  I manage a bare metal server rented at OVH, and when I discovered their kernel wasn't the stock one, I also found its last update was months before, without all the security patches released since then. That's not advertised at all in their product pages, and it exposes you to a bunch of security issues elsewhere fixed.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - skrowl 10y ago
    To be fair, that's just the default setup. It's 2 commands to update it to the normal stock kernel.
    - pietroalbini 10y ago
      I know and I did that as soon as I discovered they ship a different kernel. The problem is they don't advertise "we ship an insecure kernel by default", and they call those insecure images "Ubuntu".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
znpy 10y ago
Besides OVH having pretty crappy support, it is worth noticing that Oles (the ovh ceo/owner) basically only tweets in French, despites having customers from all-over the world. This is plain rude. This time he tweeted in english just to make some noise. But the truth is that OVH redistribuites a modified version of ubuntu, abusing of the Ubuntu trademark. Canonical rightfully wants OVH to either stop using the Ubuntu trademark or pay canonical to certifiy that the OS ovh distribuites is an Ubuntu-grade ubuntu derivative. This is perfectly fine. If OVH does not want to pay, OVH should just call their ubuntu-based OSes something like "OVH Linux". BTW, 1-2 Eur/installatio is an insane price, I suspect that Oles is just lying about that pice.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  It's a french thing. Once I literally was told that the cafe "is closed" because I dared to speak english. It was Carcasonne fortress, midday, middle of summer, with hundred other people being served. Don't hold your breath
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    The French are a proud people, especially concerning their language. If you try (and fail) to talk to people in French first, they'll generally be happy to switch to English. Just don't start out in English.
    - msh 10y ago
      You say this like its a perfectly fine way of behaving?
      - lorenzhs 10y ago
        You say this like it isn't? What makes English so special that everyone has to use it over their own language? How would you feel if someone were to approach you in French, not showing the slightest inclination to speak English, not even a "hello"?
toyg 10y ago
Ubuntu is entirely in its rights to do this, from a legal and commercial point of view, regardless of their motives. I wonder however what would happen if they pushed it too hard. Ubuntu has become the "default cloud OS" because of the freedom it granted and the quality it delivered at unbeatable prices. With a price tag attached, it gets less attractive; but what are the alternatives? Blessing a minor or hackier distribution? Fall back on Debian with its slow release cycle, or on Fedora with all its RedHat baggage?
- pietroalbini 10y ago
  As a customer I'm happy if Canonical enforces this, because it means cloud providers can't advertise as "Ubuntu" insecure images, as OVH is doing.
hartator 10y ago
https://twitter.com/hartator/status/744662021598175233 https://twitter.com/hartator/status/744662021598175233 I've asked on Twitter if removing the option to have the ovh modified version of Ubuntu will be enough. I always have random bugs when I was using it anyway. And it's pretty hard to debug.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

123 points by hbogert 10y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459

Keep in mind, as is mentioned in the previous discussion, this is only because OVH is distributing a modified version of Ubuntu.

sspiff 10y ago
As most hosts do. I've noticed the following from personal experience, but I'm pretty sure there are more out there: - OVH modifies the kernel (though users can opt for stock kernel, losing integration into OVH's monitoring infrastructure). - Scaleway modifies the runtime environment extensively, even on their bare metal servers, to provide integration / deep hooks into their APIs. They seem to be modifying the boot sequence, init system and replace the kernel. I'm not sure what Canonical's goal is - protecting their brand from uncertified, unknown quality third party extensions? Or simply monetizing? Either way, they should be careful not to be seen as a bully by the public for this kind of thing - they already have a pretty iffy reputation in the open source world, with their Unity desktop, Mir, upstart, Amazon integration, ... (I realize that most of these have been fixed or dropped - but they're an indication of intent).
- tgayton 10y ago
  They've clarified, in their intellectual property policy[1] that this is exactly as you speculate, for quality control in relation to use of their trademarks. Canonical doesn't want someone to release a derivative which is unstable due to modification and call it "Ubuntu 16.04 LTS", therefore potentially resulting in blame being placed on them. Regardless of personal opinion, it's an interesting situation considering the differing opinions on the separation between brand IP and source code IP. [1] http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-...
- keithpeter 10y ago
  Perhaps OVH should simply call it Blue Fin Linux or something? Or Globe Linux? Or are we talking recompilation of all the packages to remove the phrase 'ubuntu'? The latter would be much more complex. You are getting into CentOS territory with their 'North American Upstream Vendor' then.
  - pietroalbini 10y ago
    Or maybe they should stop shipping kernels without months of security patches, and advertize their broken images as "Ubuntu".
    - keithpeter 10y ago
      Suppose OVH paid the $1 per month per VPS and Canonical therefore allowed the use of the Ubuntu trade mark. Would you be fine with that? My point is that perhaps trade mark/copyright law isn't the best way to encourage vendors to update their products.
      - pietroalbini 10y ago
        We don't even know what this 1€/instance is paid for: the only source we have is a tweet from the OVH founder. Maybe there was a discussion before, or maybe not, we're just speculating here. My guess is the price is for certifying the images, which also means guaranteeing the kernel has all the security patches in it. That means OVH would be able to customize the kernel to integrate it in their control panel, and the customers would get a secure and not broken Ubuntu image. The other option is to ship the stock image (and maybe put the integration in a .deb, as another person suggested here), and don't pay anything because you would be OK under the trademark policy.
      - detaro 10y ago
        What's a better way for Ubuntu to do that? Given the open-source nature of the product, the trademark is the one avenue they have, and it's reputation quite important to differentiate themselves.

raverbashing 10y ago

I think it's fair, but how much OVH charges for each VM? $5 per month? I think that's a bit too much (or they'll just slap the $1 as a "Canonical Fee" and be done with it)

fermigier 10y ago
IMHO the problem is not if it's fair or not, but if Canonical's demand is grounded on juridically or not. OVH is a huge user of open source, and, as far as I been told by several sources, gives very little back (for instance, they have a no open source contribution policy internally). But I'd like to see the juridical arguments forbidding any hosting provider to propose a given trademarked distribution on their system.
- icebraining 10y ago
  IANAL, but as it has been pointed out, OVH distributes a modified version of Ubuntu, not (only?) a pristine copy. As such, that may be considered a material difference, which gives Canonical a claim against OVH. Quoting a ruling, [T]he unauthorized (...) sale of materially different merchandise violates the Lanham Act because a difference in products bearing the same name confuses consumers and impinges on the local trademark holder’s goodwill.
  - PedroBatista 10y ago
    But Canonical doesn't seem to have a problem with that... as long as they get paid. The truth (IMHO): OVH changes the ISOs but wants to call it Ubuntu because it's a huge brand. Canonical smells blood in the water and wants money. Nobody is an angel here.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Canonical does have a problem with that, which is why they require OVH and other re-distributors of modified versions to submit them for approval, for which they charge. This is all in their IP policies: http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-...

jepler 10y ago

May I suggest to call it GNU, for "GNU is not Ubuntu".

StevePerkins 10y ago

OVH should really be more clear that their Ubuntu images are modified down at the kernel level, and are not "stock" Ubuntu. This is the first time I've ever heard about this. Say what you want about software patents, or asserting copyright over an API, etc. But trademark law exists entirely to prevent confusion like this, and I think it's valid. Hosts should be required to loudly disclose that images are modified, or else they should get a licensing deal and have them certified by the trademark holder. Users think they're installing "Ubuntu", and they aren't. That's not acceptable to me.

andypants 10y ago
I agree. I thought I had installed ubuntu recently on ovh servers, and found many files/folders in `/sys/kernel` missing. I had to google around a bit to find out that when I installed Ubuntu, it wasn't actually Ubuntu, but OVH-modified Ubuntu. I ended up having 4 servers reinstalled with stock Ubuntu.
pietroalbini 10y ago
I manage a bare metal server rented at OVH, and when I discovered their kernel wasn't the stock one, I also found its last update was months before, without all the security patches released since then. That's not advertised at all in their product pages, and it exposes you to a bunch of security issues elsewhere fixed.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- skrowl 10y ago
  To be fair, that's just the default setup. It's 2 commands to update it to the normal stock kernel.
  - pietroalbini 10y ago
    I know and I did that as soon as I discovered they ship a different kernel. The problem is they don't advertise "we ship an insecure kernel by default", and they call those insecure images "Ubuntu".

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

znpy 10y ago

Besides OVH having pretty crappy support, it is worth noticing that Oles (the ovh ceo/owner) basically only tweets in French, despites having customers from all-over the world. This is plain rude. This time he tweeted in english just to make some noise. But the truth is that OVH redistribuites a modified version of ubuntu, abusing of the Ubuntu trademark. Canonical rightfully wants OVH to either stop using the Ubuntu trademark or pay canonical to certifiy that the OS ovh distribuites is an Ubuntu-grade ubuntu derivative. This is perfectly fine. If OVH does not want to pay, OVH should just call their ubuntu-based OSes something like "OVH Linux". BTW, 1-2 Eur/installatio is an insane price, I suspect that Oles is just lying about that pice.

emp_zealoth 10y ago
It's a french thing. Once I literally was told that the cafe "is closed" because I dared to speak english. It was Carcasonne fortress, midday, middle of summer, with hundred other people being served. Don't hold your breath
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  The French are a proud people, especially concerning their language. If you try (and fail) to talk to people in French first, they'll generally be happy to switch to English. Just don't start out in English.
  - msh 10y ago
    You say this like its a perfectly fine way of behaving?
    - lorenzhs 10y ago
      You say this like it isn't? What makes English so special that everyone has to use it over their own language? How would you feel if someone were to approach you in French, not showing the slightest inclination to speak English, not even a "hello"?

toyg 10y ago

Ubuntu is entirely in its rights to do this, from a legal and commercial point of view, regardless of their motives. I wonder however what would happen if they pushed it too hard. Ubuntu has become the "default cloud OS" because of the freedom it granted and the quality it delivered at unbeatable prices. With a price tag attached, it gets less attractive; but what are the alternatives? Blessing a minor or hackier distribution? Fall back on Debian with its slow release cycle, or on Fedora with all its RedHat baggage?

pietroalbini 10y ago
As a customer I'm happy if Canonical enforces this, because it means cloud providers can't advertise as "Ubuntu" insecure images, as OVH is doing.

hartator 10y ago

https://twitter.com/hartator/status/744662021598175233 https://twitter.com/hartator/status/744662021598175233 I've asked on Twitter if removing the option to have the ovh modified version of Ubuntu will be enough. I always have random bugs when I was using it anyway. And it's pretty hard to debug.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]