
Canonical asks OVH to pay €1-2/mo/VPS. Else, prohibited to use the mark “Ubuntu” - hbogert
https://twitter.com/olesovhcom/status/744611505140797440
======
filleokus
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459)

------
StevePerkins
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.

~~~
davb
How does this work when Ubuntu package maintainers patch upstream packages? Do
they arrange special trademark licensing terms with the upstream maintainer?

I think I'm apt-get installing super-foo-blah, but during installation it's
actually being patched so is deviating from what upstream are really shipping
[1].

As I understand it, Canonical advocate patching upstream packages (with the
noble goal of improving compatibility with their platform) and keeping the
package under the same name. Just as OVH et al are doing with Ubuntu itself.

[1] [http://packaging.ubuntu.com/html/patches-to-
packages.html](http://packaging.ubuntu.com/html/patches-to-packages.html)

~~~
pietroalbini
If those packages' names are under trademark and the terms says you can't ship
modified versions of the package, they must either:

\- Ask for the approval of the upstream developer

\- Rename the package, as Debian did with Firefox/IceWeasel

The problem with the OVH images is their kernel lacks months of security
patches, so they're advertising _insecure_ images as "Ubuntu".

~~~
davb
I absolutely agree that downstream packages have some level of responsibility
to maintain up-to-date packages.

However, this alone isn't _necessarily_ reason to prevent someone from
distributing derived versions of your open source project using the original
name.

If this was the case, Canonical would prevent people from shipping EOL'd
versions of Ubuntu under any circumstances. If I ship an appliance with Ubuntu
10.04 (EOL 2013-05-09), it would have the same negative impact as shipping a
patched 16.04 with no up-to-date patches or a similarly unpatchable kernel or
core package.

~~~
pietroalbini
Even if in this case the changes they make are damaging the system security,
the trademark policy doesn't say anything about security or updates: you just
can't ship unapproved changes in an image called "Ubuntu", regardless if those
changes are secure or not.

Edit: typo

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

~~~
sspiff
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).

~~~
keithpeter
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
Or maybe they should stop shipping kernels without months of security patches,
and advertize their broken images as "Ubuntu".

~~~
keithpeter
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
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.

------
toyg
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
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.

------
znpy
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
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
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
You say this like its a perfectly fine way of behaving?

~~~
lorenzhs
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"?

~~~
msh
So everyone should learn something of the language of every country they visit
however shortly?

English is the 2nd language most people in the world knows so that's a natural
language to use approaching people whose language you don't know.

English is not my native language. If someone visited my country I would
expect them to speak to me in English, not learn my language unless they were
going to settle here.

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

------
raverbashing
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
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
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
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
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-...](http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-
policies/intellectual-property-policy)

------
hartator
[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.

