6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - lorenzhs 10y ago
      > 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) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) It also goes beyond what is covered by trademark law (due to absence of a concept of non-infringing use). That's exactly mjg59's point, btw.
      - vacri 10y ago
        You missed the bit "or put in the elbow-grease yourself". Software can be free yet still require you to remove their trademarks. Look at pretty much any other distro, for example. You aren't asking to use the software, you're asking to use the trademark. Put in the work to remove the trademark yourself, and the software violates none of the four freedoms. Elsewhere in this thread you're pinging someone else about spreading misinformation. You're doing the same thing yourself.
        lorenzhs 10y ago
        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 certainly doesn't meet the requirements of free software.
        fredgrott 10y ago
        no, in fact it does not go beyond trademark law..ask a trademark lawyer dude..
  - bryanlarsen 10y ago
    "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 it Ubuntu. Nobody's willing to do that simply because a version of Ubuntu not called Ubuntu isn't worth much to most people interested in doing such a thing. If OVH called their hacked-up version of Ubuntu "OVHuntu" they'd lose some of their customers to competitors who have a "real" Ubuntu install option.
    - grifferz 10y ago
      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.
      - mhall119 10y ago
        > 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.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  From a quick scroll through your comment history here, it seems that you have a personal agenda to defend Canonical and defame Matthew Garret. You have been called out on it before, yet you continue to spread this misinformation. It seems like the person who "tries confuse people about this" isn't Matthew Garret, it's you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10614110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10614110 is a particularly classy ad-hominem attack on him.
- sctb 10y ago
  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.
pietroalbini 10y ago
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 I don't want that either.
- vader1 10y ago
  FYI, apart from the kernel, OVH's "Ubuntu" image also adds their SSH key to the root user (http://help.ovh.co.uk/InstallOvhKey http://help.ovh.co.uk/InstallOvhKey) and pre-installs some monitoring daemon.
  - peller 10y ago
    Is adding root SSH keys common practice in the hosting world?
    - verroq 10y ago
      The reality is that they own your hardware and can do whatever they want. But most hosts are more subtle about this.
    - throwaway7767 10y ago
      Yes, either that or a dedicated sudo-enabled account. It's a slight step up from the older setups where they had a dedicated account with a common password known to all the second-level and higher techs. It's because 90% of users don't know what they're doing and at some point will ask for support, and they probably won't be able to get the techs access when needed. It sucks for the 10% who are capable and willing to operate their servers independently. Source: I've worked at hosting companies.
  - pietroalbini 10y ago
    Wow, didn't know that. Good thing I usually block root access. Thank you!

by Jonnax 10y ago

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.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    > 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) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) It also goes beyond what is covered by trademark law (due to absence of a concept of non-infringing use). That's exactly mjg59's point, btw.
    - vacri 10y ago
      You missed the bit "or put in the elbow-grease yourself". Software can be free yet still require you to remove their trademarks. Look at pretty much any other distro, for example. You aren't asking to use the software, you're asking to use the trademark. Put in the work to remove the trademark yourself, and the software violates none of the four freedoms. Elsewhere in this thread you're pinging someone else about spreading misinformation. You're doing the same thing yourself.
      - lorenzhs 10y ago
        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 certainly doesn't meet the requirements of free software.
        fredgrott 10y ago
        no, in fact it does not go beyond trademark law..ask a trademark lawyer dude..
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  "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 it Ubuntu. Nobody's willing to do that simply because a version of Ubuntu not called Ubuntu isn't worth much to most people interested in doing such a thing. If OVH called their hacked-up version of Ubuntu "OVHuntu" they'd lose some of their customers to competitors who have a "real" Ubuntu install option.
  - grifferz 10y ago
    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.
    - mhall119 10y ago
      > 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.
lorenzhs 10y ago
From a quick scroll through your comment history here, it seems that you have a personal agenda to defend Canonical and defame Matthew Garret. You have been called out on it before, yet you continue to spread this misinformation. It seems like the person who "tries confuse people about this" isn't Matthew Garret, it's you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10614110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10614110 is a particularly classy ad-hominem attack on him.
sctb 10y ago
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.

pietroalbini 10y ago

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 I don't want that either.

vader1 10y ago
FYI, apart from the kernel, OVH's "Ubuntu" image also adds their SSH key to the root user (http://help.ovh.co.uk/InstallOvhKey http://help.ovh.co.uk/InstallOvhKey) and pre-installs some monitoring daemon.
- peller 10y ago
  Is adding root SSH keys common practice in the hosting world?
  - verroq 10y ago
    The reality is that they own your hardware and can do whatever they want. But most hosts are more subtle about this.
  - throwaway7767 10y ago
    Yes, either that or a dedicated sudo-enabled account. It's a slight step up from the older setups where they had a dedicated account with a common password known to all the second-level and higher techs. It's because 90% of users don't know what they're doing and at some point will ask for support, and they probably won't be able to get the techs access when needed. It sucks for the 10% who are capable and willing to operate their servers independently. Source: I've worked at hosting companies.
- pietroalbini 10y ago
  Wow, didn't know that. Good thing I usually block root access. Thank you!