4 ms·
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 b
by 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 agoIANAL, 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 agoBut 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 agoCanonical 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-...
- jamespo 10y agoCanonical also provide a product for free that powers an enormous swathe of the internet
- toyg 10y ago> they have a no open source contribution policy internally Man, that's just evil. <adds company name to list of businesses never to patronise>