10 ms·

Ubuntu still isn't free software

115 points by davidgerard 10y ago

onli 10y ago
Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believing that alarmist stance: 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 does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu. If you need us to approve, certify or provide modified versions for redistribution you will require a licence agreement from Canonical, for which you may be required to pay. For further information, please contact us (as set out below).
- detaro 10y ago
  Which pretty much reads like the "alarmist stance" could be right. "associate it with the Trademarks" seems pretty open to interpretation without a clear statement from Canonical. If it were so clear-cut they would have no reason not to provide such a statement.
- jwfxpr 10y ago
  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)", they have not clarified this concern despite being contacted and asked.
  - nippples 10y ago
    Could this possibly refer to situations where the original binaries contain trademarked content?
    - ckastner 10y ago
      I believe this is the only rational explanation. The other, non-trademark-containing software, is distributed under a FOSS license (both the source and the binary derivative), and I don't see how anyone could be legally forced to rebuild the binary. The copyright situation is clear, the legal leg this is standing on seems to be the trademark situation.
    - mjg59 10y ago
      Mark Shuttleworth has told me that they assert copyright over all their binaries and that this restriction is intended to apply regardless of trademarks.
    - mamon 10y ago
      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.
  - taneq 10y ago
    But if that's the whole argument then it's a gimme from the start, since Ubuntu includes non-free driver blobs and the like. They prioritise utility over "free software purity".
- leni536 10y ago
  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.
  - morganvachon 10y ago
    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 licenses of the software they used to build their OS, they try to claim ownership of said software (by slapping their trademark on the finished bundle) and bully any entity that wishes to exercise the rights those licenses afford them.
    - onli 10y ago
      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.
      - tajen 10y ago
        Bully: Canonical's stance also means that startups who create a business on an Ubuntu derivative (e.g. Elementary.io) may not be able to raise money, or they'll have to raise money at a discount, because of the huge risk of litigation and the risk of the results completely voiding their business. That Canonical hasn't done it yet doesn't mean they're not sabotaging an sector.
- taneq 10y ago
  This was my conclusion also. TFA says: > It's legitimate for Canonical to insist that you not pass it off as their work when doing so, but their IP policy continues to insist that you remove all references to Canonical's trademarks even if their use would not infringe trademark law. Since we're being pedantic about wordings, it doesn't say "remove all references to Canonical's trademarks", it says "remove and replace the Trademarks and [...] create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source license applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu." I think it's explicit here that where this request to remove their trademarks conflicts with any existing licensing, that licensing will take precedence. When read in conjunction with https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing which stipulates that any component in the main Ubuntu component "must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under the same licence" it seems pretty clear that any software in the main component, at least, is protected and they're only doing what they're legally required to do to protect their trademarks.
logronoide 10y ago
Canonical should be cautious about this kind of actions. They should learn the lessons from CentOS and how it impacts RedHat revenue. RedHat has a clear and defined business model (I don't like it, but it's well defined). Nobody knows the business model of Canonical, so an Ubuntu fork/clone could kill them.
- mentat2737 10y ago
  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.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Really? I am yet to see a Mint installation live. Around me and our customers it is all about Ubuntu and Red-Hat.
    - grigjd3 10y ago
      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.
    - mentat2737 10y ago
      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.
Jonnax 10y ago
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's. This is the same thing with Red Hat and Centos, right?
- delonia 10y ago
  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.
  - grifferz 10y ago
    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/archives/technical-board/2015-November/002179.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-Novem... If Canonical wanted people to be able to redistribute something based on Ubuntu, that does not infringe any Canonical trademark, then it would be very simple for them to enable that. But they don't appear to want to enable that. And without that right, Ubuntu is not free software. Note that Canonical relies on the right to redistribute a modified version of Debian in order for Ubuntu to exist at all.
    - vacri 10y ago
      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 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.
belorn 10y ago
Recalling back a couple of years ago when people talked about this, Ubuntu added "This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu.", resulting in that copyleft software is unaffected by the condition but permissive license must be recompiled. A rather imperfect situation, and it seems that no much has changed since 2015. https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms
pietroalbini 10y ago
I guess the Canonical announce is the follow-up of the tweet the OVH owner sent a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459
- delonia 10y ago
  That person from OVH is a character. You can install an "Ubuntu" on OVH, but the kernel is a modified kernel. When you try to install standard services that are meant to work with Ubuntu, they do not work with the "OVH Ubuntu". Apparently, Ubuntu contacted OVH to make the Ubuntu kernel closer to the stock Ubuntu kernel but OVH did not bother to do anything about it. Then, Ubuntu told them that they break the trademark and one of the things they can do is get a license for the existing messy "OHV handicapped ubuntu", so that they keep providing this mess. At that point, the founder of OVH went on twitter and a shitstorm ensued. The whole affair reflects badly on the OVH founder. But many people will keep another impression in their mind.
delonia 10y ago
This is Matthew Garrett (mjg59), and he has a hate against the Ubuntu project that goes back several years. The way he works is that he finds something that he interprets as questionable (his words: "it can be interpreted as meaning"), and then starts screaming because he needs ASAP an official reply. The climate-change deniers employ this technique and you get ordinary people questioning the scientists. His employer should comment on this since what CoreOS is doing and what is offered by Ubuntu Core do overlap. These posts are not personal posts anymore.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  You're not being fair to him. He asked Canonical for clarification multiple times, and they refuse to clarify what their IP policy actually entails. He's given them years to do so, and they haven't. That's not "needs ASAP an official reply".
- davexunit 10y ago
  Ubuntu's policies on this matter were so unclear that the FSF had to get involved and it took them years to get Canonical to change the terms such that they don't violate the GPL. Even after that, it's still an unclear policy.
Illniyar 10y ago
I fail to see the problem- either don't change the image in a meaningful way or recompile without the name ubuntu and call it something else. Seems ok to me. Also, using the Ubuntu name for a product not made by canonical without permission is against trademark law, so the argument made seems moot. A few restrictions does not automatically make something "not free". In fact copyleft "free software" has tons of restrictions.
- delonia 10y ago
  That post was written by Matthew Garrett, and he has written many similar posts against Ubuntu over the years. His previous rant was about the snaps in Ubuntu. That they are not fully secure (contained) because Linux distributions are still based X11. It's a one-sided hate directed specifically against Ubuntu. If only someone revealed to him Oracle's "Unbreakable" Linux and http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulletinapr2016-2952096.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulle...
- ecnahc515 10y ago
  That isn't enough. Mark Shuttleworth had said you cannot simply remove all trademarks, that may not be sufficient. they don't document what needs removing, and thus it's fairly difficult to actually "just" removing trademarks.
grabcocque 10y ago
The idea that it's impossible to distribute an Ubuntu-based distribution will surely come as a surprise to Mint.
- noselasd 10y ago
  There is a big difference in basing your distro on Ubuntu, but naming it something else and basing your distro on Ubuntu and still calling it Ubuntu.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Not according to Canonical, or this article: every redistribution of Ubuntu's binary packages, under what name or flag whatsoever, requires written approval from Canonical.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  It's not, it's just difficult.
andrewclunn 10y ago
Do these distros point to Ubuntu's software center? Making your own distro, but pointing it at Canonical servers would be an issue as well.
- pietroalbini 10y ago
  The problem here is not about the repositories, but that an hosting provider installs broken Ubuntu images to its customers calling them "Ubuntu", which is infringing the trademark policy.
piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
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 https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html
- pjc50 10y ago
  That was an entertaining way of dealing with the absurdities of gamergate.
  - piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
    Replacing comments which you apparently can't refute with the phrase "Fart fart fart". Indeed, very entertaining and mature.
    - geofft 10y ago
      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.
qplex 10y ago
The thing is (at least of late 2016) that Debian > Ubuntu, and nobody wants to fork a fork that is worse than the parent.
- billsix 10y ago
  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.
chappi42 10y ago
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.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  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.
arca_vorago 10y ago
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.
- sjellis 10y ago
  Yeah, Ubuntu was revolutionary when it came out, because it made Debian accessible to a much broader audience and fixed all sorts of small but important hangnails, at a time when that was exactly what was needed. Today, the gap between Ubuntu and Debian on cloud servers is fairly narrow: third-party packages tend to be built for Ubuntu, but Debian is fine. The big difference is that Ubuntu LTS releases have long, guaranteed support periods, which is very useful for business planning. I'm not going to comment on the Ubuntu desktop.
paulddraper 10y ago
Should read "Ubuntu is trademarked". news.ycombinator.com is free. Also, trademarked. 7/11 slurpies are free on 7/11. Also, trademarked.
- Gracana 10y ago
  That is the concept the article introduces and then contrasts with what Canonical is doing.
happy-go-lucky 10y ago
That isn't new and may and/or can not be in the near future :)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
PostIsID10Tic99 10y ago
Finding this a little late by HN standards, but this author is full of nonsense. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html "Rules about packaging and distribution details Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more." And yes it says in explaining freedom 2 & 3: "The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. " But I argue being required to remove Canonical/Ubuntu legally protected artifacts does not in anyway "effectively hamper" someone from releasing their changes. But regardless, so what? Calling them out won't change anything. When does that ever work? They've crafted a justification. The only way to get them to change is stop using Ubuntu.
makecheck 10y ago
One of the things about releasing source code under various licenses is that it can’t be made purposely difficult to maintain: e.g. you can’t release obfuscated garbage that “technically” compiles into the binary that you released, you must release the code that you actually maintain so any type of modification is feasible. Why doesn’t that also apply when there are rules about “removing” things? It could be extremely difficult to figure out all the places that specify something, especially if the wording is not absolutely consistent. I would hate to fix 99 of them and still be sued by missing the 100th. If a project wants to have a rule like this then they should say exactly how to comply. For example, don’t say “you must remove”; say “to replace the trademark, edit script_that_everything_uses_to_set_this”, or “here is the exhaustive list of files to change when replacing the trademark”, or whatever.

115 points by davidgerard 10y ago

onli 10y ago

Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believing that alarmist stance: 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 does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu. If you need us to approve, certify or provide modified versions for redistribution you will require a licence agreement from Canonical, for which you may be required to pay. For further information, please contact us (as set out below).

detaro 10y ago
Which pretty much reads like the "alarmist stance" could be right. "associate it with the Trademarks" seems pretty open to interpretation without a clear statement from Canonical. If it were so clear-cut they would have no reason not to provide such a statement.
jwfxpr 10y ago
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)", they have not clarified this concern despite being contacted and asked.
- nippples 10y ago
  Could this possibly refer to situations where the original binaries contain trademarked content?
  - ckastner 10y ago
    I believe this is the only rational explanation. The other, non-trademark-containing software, is distributed under a FOSS license (both the source and the binary derivative), and I don't see how anyone could be legally forced to rebuild the binary. The copyright situation is clear, the legal leg this is standing on seems to be the trademark situation.
  - mjg59 10y ago
    Mark Shuttleworth has told me that they assert copyright over all their binaries and that this restriction is intended to apply regardless of trademarks.
  - mamon 10y ago
    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.
- taneq 10y ago
  But if that's the whole argument then it's a gimme from the start, since Ubuntu includes non-free driver blobs and the like. They prioritise utility over "free software purity".
leni536 10y ago
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.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  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 licenses of the software they used to build their OS, they try to claim ownership of said software (by slapping their trademark on the finished bundle) and bully any entity that wishes to exercise the rights those licenses afford them.
  - onli 10y ago
    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.
    - tajen 10y ago
      Bully: Canonical's stance also means that startups who create a business on an Ubuntu derivative (e.g. Elementary.io) may not be able to raise money, or they'll have to raise money at a discount, because of the huge risk of litigation and the risk of the results completely voiding their business. That Canonical hasn't done it yet doesn't mean they're not sabotaging an sector.
taneq 10y ago
This was my conclusion also. TFA says: > It's legitimate for Canonical to insist that you not pass it off as their work when doing so, but their IP policy continues to insist that you remove all references to Canonical's trademarks even if their use would not infringe trademark law. Since we're being pedantic about wordings, it doesn't say "remove all references to Canonical's trademarks", it says "remove and replace the Trademarks and [...] create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source license applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu." I think it's explicit here that where this request to remove their trademarks conflicts with any existing licensing, that licensing will take precedence. When read in conjunction with https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing which stipulates that any component in the main Ubuntu component "must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under the same licence" it seems pretty clear that any software in the main component, at least, is protected and they're only doing what they're legally required to do to protect their trademarks.

logronoide 10y ago

Canonical should be cautious about this kind of actions. They should learn the lessons from CentOS and how it impacts RedHat revenue. RedHat has a clear and defined business model (I don't like it, but it's well defined). Nobody knows the business model of Canonical, so an Ubuntu fork/clone could kill them.

mentat2737 10y ago
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.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Really? I am yet to see a Mint installation live. Around me and our customers it is all about Ubuntu and Red-Hat.
  - grigjd3 10y ago
    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.
  - mentat2737 10y ago
    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.

Jonnax 10y ago

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's. This is the same thing with Red Hat and Centos, right?

delonia 10y ago
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.
- grifferz 10y ago
  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/archives/technical-board/2015-November/002179.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-Novem... If Canonical wanted people to be able to redistribute something based on Ubuntu, that does not infringe any Canonical trademark, then it would be very simple for them to enable that. But they don't appear to want to enable that. And without that right, Ubuntu is not free software. Note that Canonical relies on the right to redistribute a modified version of Debian in order for Ubuntu to exist at all.
  - vacri 10y ago
    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 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.

belorn 10y ago

Recalling back a couple of years ago when people talked about this, Ubuntu added "This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu.", resulting in that copyleft software is unaffected by the condition but permissive license must be recompiled. A rather imperfect situation, and it seems that no much has changed since 2015. https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms

pietroalbini 10y ago

I guess the Canonical announce is the follow-up of the tweet the OVH owner sent a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459

delonia 10y ago
That person from OVH is a character. You can install an "Ubuntu" on OVH, but the kernel is a modified kernel. When you try to install standard services that are meant to work with Ubuntu, they do not work with the "OVH Ubuntu". Apparently, Ubuntu contacted OVH to make the Ubuntu kernel closer to the stock Ubuntu kernel but OVH did not bother to do anything about it. Then, Ubuntu told them that they break the trademark and one of the things they can do is get a license for the existing messy "OHV handicapped ubuntu", so that they keep providing this mess. At that point, the founder of OVH went on twitter and a shitstorm ensued. The whole affair reflects badly on the OVH founder. But many people will keep another impression in their mind.

delonia 10y ago

This is Matthew Garrett (mjg59), and he has a hate against the Ubuntu project that goes back several years. The way he works is that he finds something that he interprets as questionable (his words: "it can be interpreted as meaning"), and then starts screaming because he needs ASAP an official reply. The climate-change deniers employ this technique and you get ordinary people questioning the scientists. His employer should comment on this since what CoreOS is doing and what is offered by Ubuntu Core do overlap. These posts are not personal posts anymore.

lorenzhs 10y ago
You're not being fair to him. He asked Canonical for clarification multiple times, and they refuse to clarify what their IP policy actually entails. He's given them years to do so, and they haven't. That's not "needs ASAP an official reply".
davexunit 10y ago
Ubuntu's policies on this matter were so unclear that the FSF had to get involved and it took them years to get Canonical to change the terms such that they don't violate the GPL. Even after that, it's still an unclear policy.

Illniyar 10y ago

I fail to see the problem- either don't change the image in a meaningful way or recompile without the name ubuntu and call it something else. Seems ok to me. Also, using the Ubuntu name for a product not made by canonical without permission is against trademark law, so the argument made seems moot. A few restrictions does not automatically make something "not free". In fact copyleft "free software" has tons of restrictions.

delonia 10y ago
That post was written by Matthew Garrett, and he has written many similar posts against Ubuntu over the years. His previous rant was about the snaps in Ubuntu. That they are not fully secure (contained) because Linux distributions are still based X11. It's a one-sided hate directed specifically against Ubuntu. If only someone revealed to him Oracle's "Unbreakable" Linux and http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulletinapr2016-2952096.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulle...
ecnahc515 10y ago
That isn't enough. Mark Shuttleworth had said you cannot simply remove all trademarks, that may not be sufficient. they don't document what needs removing, and thus it's fairly difficult to actually "just" removing trademarks.

grabcocque 10y ago

The idea that it's impossible to distribute an Ubuntu-based distribution will surely come as a surprise to Mint.

noselasd 10y ago
There is a big difference in basing your distro on Ubuntu, but naming it something else and basing your distro on Ubuntu and still calling it Ubuntu.
- tremon 10y ago
  Not according to Canonical, or this article: every redistribution of Ubuntu's binary packages, under what name or flag whatsoever, requires written approval from Canonical.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
It's not, it's just difficult.

andrewclunn 10y ago

Do these distros point to Ubuntu's software center? Making your own distro, but pointing it at Canonical servers would be an issue as well.

pietroalbini 10y ago
The problem here is not about the repositories, but that an hosting provider installs broken Ubuntu images to its customers calling them "Ubuntu", which is infringing the trademark policy.

piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago

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 https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html

pjc50 10y ago
That was an entertaining way of dealing with the absurdities of gamergate.
- piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
  Replacing comments which you apparently can't refute with the phrase "Fart fart fart". Indeed, very entertaining and mature.
  - geofft 10y ago
    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.

qplex 10y ago

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

billsix 10y ago
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.

chappi42 10y ago

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.

lorenzhs 10y ago
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.

arca_vorago 10y ago

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.

sjellis 10y ago
Yeah, Ubuntu was revolutionary when it came out, because it made Debian accessible to a much broader audience and fixed all sorts of small but important hangnails, at a time when that was exactly what was needed. Today, the gap between Ubuntu and Debian on cloud servers is fairly narrow: third-party packages tend to be built for Ubuntu, but Debian is fine. The big difference is that Ubuntu LTS releases have long, guaranteed support periods, which is very useful for business planning. I'm not going to comment on the Ubuntu desktop.

paulddraper 10y ago

Should read "Ubuntu is trademarked". news.ycombinator.com is free. Also, trademarked. 7/11 slurpies are free on 7/11. Also, trademarked.

Gracana 10y ago
That is the concept the article introduces and then contrasts with what Canonical is doing.

happy-go-lucky 10y ago

That isn't new and may and/or can not be in the near future :)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

PostIsID10Tic99 10y ago

Finding this a little late by HN standards, but this author is full of nonsense. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html "Rules about packaging and distribution details Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more." And yes it says in explaining freedom 2 & 3: "The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. " But I argue being required to remove Canonical/Ubuntu legally protected artifacts does not in anyway "effectively hamper" someone from releasing their changes. But regardless, so what? Calling them out won't change anything. When does that ever work? They've crafted a justification. The only way to get them to change is stop using Ubuntu.

makecheck 10y ago

One of the things about releasing source code under various licenses is that it can’t be made purposely difficult to maintain: e.g. you can’t release obfuscated garbage that “technically” compiles into the binary that you released, you must release the code that you actually maintain so any type of modification is feasible. Why doesn’t that also apply when there are rules about “removing” things? It could be extremely difficult to figure out all the places that specify something, especially if the wording is not absolutely consistent. I would hate to fix 99 of them and still be sued by missing the 100th. If a project wants to have a rule like this then they should say exactly how to comply. For example, don’t say “you must remove”; say “to replace the trademark, edit script_that_everything_uses_to_set_this”, or “here is the exhaustive list of files to change when replacing the trademark”, or whatever.