
“@ubuntu asks us to bill you 1e-2e per month for each VPS/PCI/PCC/SD” - Nyr
https://twitter.com/olesovhcom/status/744609239075799044
======
rgbrenner
Several people have pointed out that OVH modifies Ubuntu (w/ a custom kernel
to support their hardware).

If that's true, they shouldn't be surprised Ubuntu wants a license fee... it
says so in their trademark policy:

 _\- You can make changes to Ubuntu for your own personal use or for your
organisation’s own internal use._

 _\- You can redistribute Ubuntu, but only where there has been no
modification to it._

 _\- 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._

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

~~~
980120100
How about all upstream authors demanding fees from Ubuntu? Ubuntu modifies
upstream packages quite ruthlessly, often to the detriment of the users.

~~~
tankenmate
You are conflating copyright with trademarks.

~~~
icebraining
How so? Ubuntu uses the names of those programs in their packages, no?

~~~
tankenmate
As far as I am aware Ubuntu complies with all trademark requirements for
upstream software that it packages (e.g. Firefox, and probably other 3rd party
pre compiled software). For most F/OSS software they have no trademark
requirements and/or registered trademarks. So in effect Ubuntu are doing the
right thing (tm).

------
comice
A rather vague claim, needs more details. Canonical allow the use of the
Ubuntu trademark to describe unmodified versions of Ubuntu (in this case, I'd
guess it's their cloud server images)

If you modify the images, you can still redistribute them, you just can't call
it Ubuntu.

This has some problems, some of which Matthew Garrett has explored in more
details.

But generally, imo, it's a useful tool to prevent clueless vps/cloud providers
modifying Ubuntu images and breaking them and tarnishing the Ubuntu name
(which has happened repeatedly, usually breaking security).

------
dsr_
Perhaps European trademark laws are different from the US -- but here, using a
trademark to refer directly to the thing which is the subject of the trademark
is always a legal use.

That's why the Pepsi Challenge can name Coca-Cola directly as the product that
people prefer. Certainly Coca-Cola would sue them if they had any legal
grounds to stand on, and they do not.

Is OVH using "Ubuntu" to refer to something other than an Ubuntu-sourced
distro that they are making available on their servers? Are they substituting
an OVH-tweaked derivative and calling it Ubuntu? If so, then Canonical has a
plausible case. If not, it's an overanxious, overpaid and undereducated
lawyer's assistant writing letters by the hour.

~~~
patrickaljord
> Are they substituting an OVH-tweaked derivative and calling it Ubuntu?

Yes they are, they are shipping ubuntu with a custom kernel to support their
hardware, it also comes with its own set of bugs which Ubuntu needs to deal
with when they are reported upstream. So I could understand if they'd want to
charge for that.

~~~
jwildeboer
No. In that case they should demand OVH stops calling it Ubuntu. That would be
the good thing to do. Stop people from damaging your brand. But asking money
for allowing them to continue this? That just doesn't feel right.

~~~
roblabla
But it does. OVH wants to be able to brand stuff as Ubuntu. Ubuntu is unhappy
about brand damage and having to deal with ovh's bug. If ovh throws money at
canonical, they can hire people to deal with that.

It might not make much sense business-wise, but I don't see the problem
ethically speaking. OVH is in infrigment with Canonical's branding. EIther
they comply with Canonical's licensing, or they stop using the brand.

------
vrutkovs
It seems the already charge Dreamhost:
[https://twitter.com/cleverdevil/status/744622945096503297](https://twitter.com/cleverdevil/status/744622945096503297)

------
grizzles
Sounds like a good open source business model to me. If OVH were distributing
it exactly the way UbuntuCo was distributing it, eg. as an ISO on a http/ftp
site then I don't think UbuntuCo would have the legal footing to do this. But
by acting as a VAR hosting provider, with provisioning guis, etc. then OVH
have changed the product, and can no longer be a free rider.

Since it's not exactly Ubuntu anymore, it stands to reason that hosting
companies should pay to license the trademark Ubuntu or rebrand it like the
CentOS guys did.

~~~
eropple
It's not that they're a hosting provider, it's that they package a different
kernel (which makes it vary from the actual, Canonical-provided product).

------
nmstoker
Might it be better to hear Canonical's position before we all leap into how
awful this is? Is there any particular policy they're on record as applying
here?

------
hartator
[https://mobile.twitter.com/Hartator/status/74466202159817523...](https://mobile.twitter.com/Hartator/status/744662021598175233)

Asked 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.

------
alrs
This will be great news for Debian. Thank you, Canonical.

~~~
nailer
I like Debian more than Ubuntu too, bu I think it's more likely Ubuntu gets a
CentOS (same tech, no logos) equivalant.

~~~
rodgerd
If you think that, you haven't been paying attention to the long, torturous
saga of Canonical arguing that if you have the name "Ubuntu" in the name of
the package, the Debian-formatted release notes, or pretty much anything, you
need to beg them for trademark permission.

Matthew Garrett has been chasing this around[1].

[1]
[http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/35969.html](http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/35969.html)

~~~
athenot
The free version could just be the word "Ubuntu" in a different language. :)

~~~
tripletmass
Yes, let's defer to Kenyan popular opinion on what they would call something
they're billed forward for calling its name. Points for guessing it rhymes
with luche?

------
tamana
Mozilla doesn't let people distribute modified copies of "Firefox" either.
That's why Iceweasel was invented.

~~~
vrutkovs
This situation has been resolved recently -
[https://glandium.org/blog/?p=3622](https://glandium.org/blog/?p=3622)

~~~
SXX
Mozilla just agreed on exception for Debian only.

~~~
jbicha
No, it can't be a Debian-specific exception or it would violate #8 of the
Debian Free Software Guidelines:

[https://www.debian.org/social_contract](https://www.debian.org/social_contract)

~~~
vacri
Not at all - you can extract debian-firefox from debian and use it elsewhere,
calling it firefox. The exception wasn't "must be in debian system" as per #8,
but "debian has a proven track record of keeping FF as a quality release, so
we'll allow their modifications to bear the name".

------
tacone
Just remove the trademark and name it "Debian derivative". Make sure to link
the name to the official website so people can understand. This will lower
Ubuntu usage a lot, still people will be able to install it if they wish.

------
vacri
Ubuntu: €1-2/month from tweet

RHEL: £19.99/month (€25.64) from OVH UK page

People don't seem to complain that RHEL asks for money.

~~~
joepie91_
Probably because RHEL actually provides support for that money - otherwise,
you use CentOS - whereas Ubuntu seems to be demanding money for use of the
name while the customer gets nothing in return.

~~~
corobo
If OVH backs down and uses the bog standard Ubuntu release, the customer gets
a much better and much more secure server to play with.

I'm pretty sure I've come across your name before and seem to associate you
with a security focus. Wouldn't it be better to have the fully maintained
Ubuntu rather than OVH's un-maintained custom build?

------
mirimir
I kept rereading "1e-2e per month" in the title, trying to see it as "1e-2 EUR
per month", because 1 EUR per month is just implausible for VPS.

~~~
qu4z-2
I'm really not sure 1e-2 EUR per month is more plausible, though.

------
smartbit
Perhaps unrelated, a year ago at an Ubuntu event I understood from a Canonical
salesperson that they asks a kickback from providers when they advertise with
Ubuntu. In London Canonical has an EMEA sales team dedicated to negotiating
these kickbacks.

In my understanding this business model emerged after the Cloud providers
needed patches very fast after Heartbleed [0]. In return for the kickback,
Canonical offers fast patches and Hosters/Cloud providers can use the Ubuntu
logo.

[0]
[https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20140407.txt](https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20140407.txt)

------
inputjoker
I am hoping this to have a negative impact on ubuntu by removing ubuntu from
as many cloud services as possible. We have better alternatives, but due to
large number of community solutions makes ubuntu the common choice.

~~~
vegabook
How are there better alternatives if they don't have Ubuntu's "large number of
community solutions"?

Are we talking "better" for Unix/Linux old-guard purist-reactionaries? Or for
people who want a server that just works?

I personally just stick to Ubuntu because, on most of the software I download,
there are usually explicit setup instructions for Ubuntu, and then "other
Linux". Life is too short. Ubuntu is the path of least resistance and let's be
honest, it works.

By the way, while I'm not sure about this trademark thing, I personally want
Canonical to be a profitable and stable company that can continue to invest,
and that will be around for a long time. We can't leave all the Linux money to
Redhat.

~~~
carc1n0gen
DEBIAN

------
Nyr
Not the first time which Canonical attempts to abuse their trademark...

[http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/11/canoni...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/11/canonical-abused-trademark-law-to-target-a-site-critical-
of-ubuntu-privacy/)

------
userbinator
Call it OVHbuntu and be done with it.

~~~
YokoZar
Canonical owns the -buntu suffix too, so this isn't quite enough.

------
Shorel
I would prefer that OVH shipped Ubuntu with the right kernel instead of the
very outdated one they use.

In that case, they don't need to pay Canonical anything, and the OVH users
would have a better OS to install.

------
davb
How do various open source licences treat naming rights for derivative works?

~~~
sangnoir
Mozilla mandates that you call it anything you like, but not "Firefox"

------
clopez
""" They do the same to us at @DreamHost and I’ve always felt it was
inappropriate. """

[https://twitter.com/cleverdevil/status/744622945096503297](https://twitter.com/cleverdevil/status/744622945096503297)

~~~
icebraining
Apparently not to enough to stop using the name. Guess it has some value,
after all.

------
andmarios
Maybe they could switch to Mandriva Linux. :-k

------
pmontra
@OVH don't pay. I for sure won't pay you the extra, I'll switch to another
distro. Furthermore I'll prove in a court the legality of their claim.

~~~
pmontra
> I'll prove

Badly worded, sorry: I was inviting OVH to go to a court and check if
Canonical has any right asking them a license.

I confirm that I'll move to another distro if OVH charges me more because of
this.

~~~
pfg
They don't have the right to ask them to pay for the _software_ , but they
have a right to dictate how their trademark can be used. They're free to
distribute their software under a different name. They could also deliver an
unmodified copy of Ubuntu to their customers, which would allow them to keep
using the Ubuntu trademark.

------
mark_l_watson
I don't understand this. AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure all list Ubuntu as a VPS
OS option.

I run Ubuntu on all three of my Linux laptops and usually on leased servers
and VPSs, and I support them with donations, but if this tweet from OVH is
legitimate, then someone at Conanical needs to do some back peddling on this.

------
chmike
Ubuntu doesn't support remote desktop beside ssh. There is really no benefit
in using Ubuntu as remote server compared to Debian. I would advise to drop
support of Ubuntu. Î'm at OVH and use Debian. I´m so far happy with that. Îm
switching from Ubuntu to Debian because of the remote display problem. I can't
live without it.

~~~
danpalmer
That's not entirely true, Ubuntu is much more than its desktop environment.

I like it because it offers the trade-off of recency and stability that suits
me - relative stability with 6 month update cycle. Debian is either more
stable on a ~2-3 year cycle (currently jessie), or less stable on an ongoing
release (sid).

