Ubuntu still isn't free software
mjg59.dreamwidth.org
mjg59.dreamwidth.org
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
That Canonical hasn't done it yet doesn't mean they're not sabotaging an sector.
> 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 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.
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?
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.
I am also running Docker on one of them just fine.
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.
OVH does not install any SSH keys on the servers.
Thank you!
Edit: Ah, my bad, you meant your SSH config, I misunderstood.
I assume you're talking about blocking the document root of your web server, because at least on stock Ubuntu, you can't 100% block the root user from accessing anything (e.g., on Linux, a logged-in root can always use CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE to override permissions). Among other things, that's why a rooted Android phone can access apps that even the app developer doesn't want them to.
Here, they're talking about setting up an ssh key for the root user somewhere that the ssh server is aware of. They certainly won't put it in a directory like a document root such as `/www`. Probably they put it in `/etc/ssh`.
Except for root exploits.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And yes, Debian for servers, but some people wants more up to date software.
Around me and our customers it is all about Ubuntu and Red-Hat.
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.
From 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.
5-15 years ago, I recommended Ubuntu to others because of the ease of their installers. These days I recommend Debian.
news.ycombinator.com is free. Also, trademarked. 7/11 slurpies are free on 7/11. Also, trademarked.
> For avoidance of doubt, any comments arguing this point [my point of view] will be replaced with the phrase "Fart fart fart".
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.
Well, it was hard to beat mjg59, but it seems you've managed to do so. He just censored them, in a childish way.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate...
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...
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.
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.
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.
Look, they even managed to somehow connect the 2-years old event to the last month's three most hot keywords of left-leaning media: Trump, alt-right and hate. This shows that this article is a opinion piece targeted to a specific group of readers in order to amplify their existing beliefs, rather than a balanced description of facts.
If you question the facts of the piece, please do and point out what they are and provide evidence for your position. If you think there are no facts in the piece, point that out, too. If you think it's not the whole picture, that's another great idea: show what's missing. Lots of great opportunities to say something constructive.
Go to the Guardian article, press ctrl+f and type:
- corruption
- review
- buy
Now you see what is missing. I don't say that Gamergate didn't evolved into mostly hate driven movement in its latter phase, but its primary cause must not be ignored.
Nevertheless, I don't want to waste my time on discussing it, since my comment was about mjg59 behavior, not Gamergate (and I didn't followed it enough to discuss it in details).
He was neglecting his maintainers duties, for example he accepted a patch from a well-known troll, which in fact broke some things. So he would have to step down from maintenance anyway. (This is not any secret info, it all can be read on LKML.)
Instead he decided to play drama and presented Gamergate as a reason of stepping down. And replaced all comments who were disproving his statement with "Fart fart fart".
Having in mind all of that, I don't thing calling him 'clown' and describing his actions as childish is an exaggeration.