
Ubuntu still isn't free software - davidgerard
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/45939.html
======
onli
Read [https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-
policies/intellectual...](https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-
policies/intellectual-property-policy) 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)._

~~~
jwfxpr
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
Could this possibly refer to situations where the original binaries contain
trademarked content?

~~~
ckastner
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.

------
Jonnax
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?

~~~
pietroalbini
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
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
Is adding root SSH keys common practice in the hosting world?

~~~
throwaway7767
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.

------
Illniyar
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.

~~~
ecnahc515
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.

------
belorn
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)

------
arca_vorago
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
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.

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

~~~
noselasd
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
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.

------
makecheck
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.

------
logronoide
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
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
Really? I am yet to see a Mint installation live.

Around me and our customers it is all about Ubuntu and Red-Hat.

~~~
mentat2737
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.

------
pietroalbini
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
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.

------
PostIsID10Tic99
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.

------
chappi42
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
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._

------
andrewclunn
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
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.

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

------
qplex
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
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.

------
paulddraper
Should read "Ubuntu is trademarked".

news.ycombinator.com is free. Also, trademarked. 7/11 slurpies are free on
7/11\. Also, trademarked.

~~~
Gracana
That is the concept the article introduces and then contrasts with what
Canonical is doing.

------
piotrjurkiewicz
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
That was an entertaining way of dealing with the absurdities of gamergate.

~~~
piotrjurkiewicz
Replacing comments which you apparently can't refute with the phrase "Fart
fart fart". Indeed, very entertaining and mature.

~~~
geofft
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.

~~~
piotrjurkiewicz
Comparing people who were trying to remind what the whole affair was really
about (corruption in journalism) to antisemites.

Well, it was hard to beat mjg59, but it seems you've managed to do so. He just
censored them, in a childish way.

~~~
pjc50
It was never about "corruption" in journalism, especially not in gaming
journalism. If it had been, it would have focused on AAA devs rather than a
random indie developer who was a woman.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate-
alt-right-hate-trump)

~~~
geofft
You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly -
I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism
as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the
objection. You are obligated to take seriously the claim that this is about
ethics in journalism, when it simultaneously is and isn't, and yet
'piotrjurkiewicz feels no obligation to take what I said seriously.

In any case, the rest of Sartre's essay is completely on point. Among other
things, it addresses this exact ability to believe a thing and its
contradiction, and make it only a problem for the people who are trying to
argue against them in good faith - it's quite scary how accurately Sartre in
1944 was able to understand these modes of trolling (and trolling is really
the term for it). Harvard has the first chapter online:

[http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic468841.files/Sart...](http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic468841.files/Sartre__Anti-
Semite_and_Jew.pdf)

There's an interesting question in there of what, exactly, the anti-Semite is
going to do once they're not able to hate the Jew. That's the only thing
Sartre couldn't see in 1944, but he did see that it's not about anything the
Jewish people are or do, but as the _other_. Today we've declared anti-
Semitism unacceptable, but we've got enough other others.

~~~
grzm
If you can figure out a way to make introduce your general argument without
referencing anti-semitism, you will be much less open to hijacking of the
conversation in just the way you observe here. Especially in online
discussions, introducing flame-war inducing topics even in passing is likely
to derail the conversation.

~~~
tptacek
I don't think you read his comment very carefully. He was quoting Sartre,
about trolling. He doesn't get to choose what Sartre wrote about!

~~~
grzm
I understand 'geofft was quoting Sartre (and it's a great quote). I'm arguing
that while the quote might be useful and perfectly appropriate to the context,
that it's a poor choice to introduce in an online discussion where the
interlocutors are already adversarial. Anti-semitism is accidental to the
argument, but is easy for someone to uncharitably grab on to, derailing the
discussion and leading to a flame war. 'geofft even points this out:

 _You 're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words
responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to
anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet
that was the objection._

If the goal is to have a useful discussion, if you can come up with different
quote or analogy that does not include anti-semitism, in my opinion the
discussion would be better served.

~~~
tptacek
I think you, too, are falling for the trick he was describing, of taking
someone at their word who is manifestly unwilling to be held to their own
word. It's hard to read 'geofft's comment and think of a way he could have
been clearer that he was not calling commenters anti-Semites.

~~~
grzm
I feel like I’m being daft here. I’m going to beg your patience and ask a
favor: if there’s something I’m saying that you agree with, or that you at
least don’t think I’m wrong about, would you point it out? I can’t tell I’m
completely off base or am just missing subtle (or somewhere in between).

I agree that 'geofft is making very clear from the outset that the quote is
being used to illustrate the tactics only, that no parallel is to be drawn
with respect to anti-Semites. I also know that I sometimes accidently miss
points when reading someone’s comment, particularly when they’re discussing
another side of the topic under discussion. Gotta fight against my tribal
bias, and understand that others may be trying–and sometimes failing—to do the
same.

Here’s how I view the discussion between 'geofft and 'piotrjurkiewicz.

\- 'geofft makes a point, illustrated with a quote by Satre describing a
rhetorical tactic of anti-Semites.

\- 'piotrjurkiewicz behaves exactly as Satre describes.

\- 'pjc50 falls for the rhetorical tactic Satre describes.

\- 'geofft points this out

\- I argue that by choosing different words to make the same point Satre does
might defend 'geofft from the tactic.

From my point of view, 'piotrjurkiewicz is being either uncharitable, or
misreading 'geofft by accident or ignorance, most likely the first. I could
point this out, but if 'piotrjurkiewicz is arguing uncharitably, it isn’t
going to make a difference, and most likely antagonize them, effectively
feeding the troll. I see 'geofft as an honest, good faith interlocuter, so
it’s more worth my time to engage with 'geofft. I’ll learn regardless, that
something about my assessment about 'geofft or the discussion was mistaken—the
latter appearing increasingly likely.

You’re implying that regardless of the words 'geofft uses, 'piotrjurkiewicz is
going to uncharitably interpret them, correct? Which does again parallel the
point of the Sartre quote. I can see how your assessment that I might be
falling for this is accurate, and I do purposefully leave myself open to that
to some extent, at least until I see that that’s the case (I hope). By
choosing words that are less likely to distract from the point I’m trying to
make, hopefully I can make that assessment more quickly, by pushing them to
the point where “they will abruptly fall silent”, giving them the least amount
of room to maneuver and play.

I can also see how this can be folly. Looking up where this quote is taken
from (“Anti-Semite and Jew”), I also find this quote: “The rational man groans
as he gropes for the truth; he knows that his reasoning is no more than
tentative, that other considerations may supervene to cast doubt on it.” I
understand that viscerally.

My head’s spinning a little bit, having a discussion about discussion tactics
about discussion tactics—have I incepted enough? Maybe Sartre was trolling? ;)

Thank you for pushing me on this. I’m learning, er, groaning a lot.

