“@ubuntu asks us to bill you 1e-2e per month for each VPS/PCI/PCC/SD”(twitter.com)
twitter.com
“@ubuntu asks us to bill you 1e-2e per month for each VPS/PCI/PCC/SD”
https://twitter.com/olesovhcom/status/744609239075799044
109 comments
Their modifications to Ubuntu have caused me problems in the past, so I'm not really sympathetic.
Ran into this problem a couple of months ago.
Could not figure out why Docker would not install on a stock 14.04 bare metal server from OVH.
Turns out it was their custom kernel.
With a little flag in the corner giving the option to install the stock kernel. Trying to do that gave no end of problems. So reverted to the stock Proxmox, and ran my 14.04 in a VM that uses pretty much all the resources.
True, it cost me a small %age in overhead, but it was the easiest/quickest fix.
Could not figure out why Docker would not install on a stock 14.04 bare metal server from OVH.
Turns out it was their custom kernel.
With a little flag in the corner giving the option to install the stock kernel. Trying to do that gave no end of problems. So reverted to the stock Proxmox, and ran my 14.04 in a VM that uses pretty much all the resources.
True, it cost me a small %age in overhead, but it was the easiest/quickest fix.
I needed OVH hardware specifically, so I ended up installing a stock kernel and figuring out how to edit the GRUB.
Why did I want dedi hardware? because: http://bitemyapp.com/posts/2016-03-28-speeding-up-builds.htm...
Why did I want dedi hardware? because: http://bitemyapp.com/posts/2016-03-28-speeding-up-builds.htm...
How about all upstream authors demanding fees from Ubuntu? Ubuntu modifies upstream packages quite ruthlessly, often to the detriment of the users.
You are conflating copyright with trademarks.
How so? Ubuntu uses the names of those programs in their packages, no?
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).
Sigh. Why is everyone so literal here. The question then is: If upstream authors are so generous not to trademark their works, and Ubuntu (attempts) to make money on their backs, why does Ubuntu not do the same for its derivative work?
I'm no expert, but I assume there is no license agreement saying you must pay a fee to distribute modified versions of these upstream packages.
Not sure about trademarks, but at least in copyright, the lack of a license doesn't mean you are free to use something; on the contrary, if there's no license, you can't use it at all.
"no license agreement saying ..." does not imply "no license agreement".
Fair enough. Are there licenses agreements covering these packages?
[deleted]
OVH should call it OVH Linux, similar to Amazon's AMI (not Ubuntu based). With no association to the Ubuntu trademark they should be spared with the need to recompile from sources.
Ubuntu trademarks would still remain in package names, changelogs etc., so a full recompilation is still required
This makes it sound easier than it really is. It's not just recompilation, it's patching everything to remove the trademark. Then you have tens (hundreds?) of custom packages to build and most of all to test and maintain.
I don't think they change the kernel to support any hardware, they change it to keep using the same base image for their virtualization host.
Probably using OpenVZ virtualization software which forces them to have the same kernel in host and guests.
Probably using OpenVZ virtualization software which forces them to have the same kernel in host and guests.
The rationale is also explained in the policy:
Ubuntu is a trusted open source platform. To maintain that trust we need to manage the use of Ubuntu and the components within it very carefully. This way, when people use Ubuntu, or anything bearing the Ubuntu brand, they can be assured that it will meet the standards they expect.
Ubuntu is a trusted open source platform. To maintain that trust we need to manage the use of Ubuntu and the components within it very carefully. This way, when people use Ubuntu, or anything bearing the Ubuntu brand, they can be assured that it will meet the standards they expect.
I'm not sure how they achieve the goal of maintaining trust by simply charging a licencing fee for the brand. Unless they review and certify every modified build, this seems like a simple dual licencing model under the veil of making sure customers aren't misled.
It does sound like Ubuntu reviews and certifies the build. I know they do so when Ubuntu is modified for distribution on a computer. So why wouldn't they in this case.
I don't think it's fair to describe it as a veil either. Preventing customers from being misled is the entire point of trademarks. Someone in another thread used Cocacola as an example.. so imagine if someone took Cocacola, added some ingredients, and started selling it as Cocacola... that's pretty clearly trademark infringement. And that's exactly what they're doing here.
I have to wonder why they even modify it.. Ubuntu has great hardware support in my experience.. and they release cloud and server images exactly for this purpose. Completely free.
I don't think it's fair to describe it as a veil either. Preventing customers from being misled is the entire point of trademarks. Someone in another thread used Cocacola as an example.. so imagine if someone took Cocacola, added some ingredients, and started selling it as Cocacola... that's pretty clearly trademark infringement. And that's exactly what they're doing here.
I have to wonder why they even modify it.. Ubuntu has great hardware support in my experience.. and they release cloud and server images exactly for this purpose. Completely free.
Like when ice and a slice of lemon is added to Coca-Cola in a glass? So technically Coca-Cola is just ignoring that?
If Coca-Cola's recipe were given away for free, with the explicit requirement that users who modified the recipe, then sold the product as Coca-Cola pay a fee, then yes... But in general no, not like "when ice and lemon is added to Coca-Cola."
[deleted]
[deleted]
This doesn't seem to match up with what one of the commenters said about Dreamhost: https://twitter.com/cleverdevil/status/744622945096503297
If you log into one of their shared hosts you'll see custom kernel, custom packages, etc.
Given the price, I'd say this is more about entering a commercial agreement. Once they do that they can have influence on the custom version. To use that influence will, no doubt, cost money.
The rationale is also BS unless "trust" costs just 1-2euro.
Mozilla has something similar, at least when it comes to Firefox.
Looks like everyone took their pitchforks out too soon.
Looks like everyone took their pitchforks out too soon.
Yeah i wonder how much this relates to a certain packaging format PR war that is going on right now...
Canonical is certainly trying to find a way to monetize it's OS too. It must be frustrating to be the N1 guest OS and make no money out of it. They have a couple of commercial offerings but for most part companies just use Ubuntu VMs and never pay for the security updates, bandwidth, ...
> Canonical is certainly trying to find a way to monetize it's OS too.
My bet it's the trust/'brand' thing rather than monetization - allowing anyone to make 3rd party modifications to your product and passing it off as the original/pristine version is a bad idea in any market. Heck - even Mozilla ran into this with Debian when Debian was maintaining and applying their own parallel patchset on top of Firefox. Debian snarkily called their version 'IceWeasel'[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_...
My bet it's the trust/'brand' thing rather than monetization - allowing anyone to make 3rd party modifications to your product and passing it off as the original/pristine version is a bad idea in any market. Heck - even Mozilla ran into this with Debian when Debian was maintaining and applying their own parallel patchset on top of Firefox. Debian snarkily called their version 'IceWeasel'[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_...
There was no snark - just a need to come up with a set of different names for Mozilla software modified as necessary by Debian.
I think the 'weasel' bit was pure underhanded snark (in a You're no foxes- you're a bunch of weasels kinda way). The original proposal within Debian was "IceRabbit"
> If that's true, they shouldn't be surprised Ubuntu wants a license fee
How much to they pay Debian for using a modified version of Debian?
How much to they pay Debian for using a modified version of Debian?
IDK.. but Ubuntu doesn't call their product Debian. They call it Ubuntu.
If OVH wants to take Ubuntu and call it OVH Linux, they can do that.. and they won't need to pay Ubuntu anything.
OVH is being asked to pay for a license because they refuse to rename it, and they refuse to distribute it unmodified.
OVH could also distribute it unmodified, and then package their changes into a deb package that they tell customers to install. Or they could simply allocate severs depending on which OS a person selects (so Ubuntu will work unmodified).
The fact is, they have several options to comply with Ubuntu's trademark policies.. but they've chosen to do none of those things.
If OVH wants to take Ubuntu and call it OVH Linux, they can do that.. and they won't need to pay Ubuntu anything.
OVH is being asked to pay for a license because they refuse to rename it, and they refuse to distribute it unmodified.
OVH could also distribute it unmodified, and then package their changes into a deb package that they tell customers to install. Or they could simply allocate severs depending on which OS a person selects (so Ubuntu will work unmodified).
The fact is, they have several options to comply with Ubuntu's trademark policies.. but they've chosen to do none of those things.
Note that you can't take some subset of Debian, add some modifications, and call the result Debian. In general you can't pay for that privilege either - either it's Debian - Free and open source, or it's something else, that's derived from Debian. There has been some recent discussions on the cloud-devel list about this, for what can be labelled as a "Debian" cloud/vm-image (eg: Amazon AMI etc). Eg:
"Re: Debian images on Microsoft Azure cloud" https://lists.debian.org/debian-cloud/2015/11/msg00099.html
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I'm not affiliated with Debian (other than being a long-time user).
See also:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/OfficialImages https://wiki.debian.org/Cloud
and more generally:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/Trademark
[ed: As for the "upcomming policy" mentioned in the email linked, I think this is still an ongoing process, but it more or less boils down to the wiki-pages linked. IIRC one of the issues with the initial Azure effort was that the scripts generating the images needed to run on Azure - so couldn't readily be re-created by just anyone.]
"Re: Debian images on Microsoft Azure cloud" https://lists.debian.org/debian-cloud/2015/11/msg00099.html
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I'm not affiliated with Debian (other than being a long-time user).
See also:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/OfficialImages https://wiki.debian.org/Cloud
and more generally:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/Trademark
[ed: As for the "upcomming policy" mentioned in the email linked, I think this is still an ongoing process, but it more or less boils down to the wiki-pages linked. IIRC one of the issues with the initial Azure effort was that the scripts generating the images needed to run on Azure - so couldn't readily be re-created by just anyone.]
The license fee is for the Ubuntu name, not the software. They are free to modify it but call it something else just like Ubuntu is a modified version of Debian.
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
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
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.
In that case, they don't need to pay Canonical anything, and the OVH users would have a better OS to install.
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/canoni...
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.
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.
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.
DEBIAN
What damage does it do to have a selection of tools available?
It's an advantage if there are more people using the same tool like you. More selection = less people using the same tool.
It's funny. I agree with that 100%. Especially with programming. My largest argument for a large standard library like python's is that we are at least all using the same tools.
But for some reason your suggestion really rubbed me the wrong way. Probably because I use Ubuntu a lot and find tremendous value in it. I'll have to revisit my opinions on the matter.
But for some reason your suggestion really rubbed me the wrong way. Probably because I use Ubuntu a lot and find tremendous value in it. I'll have to revisit my opinions on the matter.
This will be great news for Debian. Thank you, Canonical.
No good. Even Debian puts restrictions on how you can use its trademark... https://www.debian.org/trademark
I like Debian more than Ubuntu too, bu I think it's more likely Ubuntu gets a CentOS (same tech, no logos) equivalant.
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
Matthew Garrett has been chasing this around[1].
[1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/35969.html
The free version could just be the word "Ubuntu" in a different language. :)
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?
Likely enough, and depressing to think of all the effort that could go into Debian instead getting spent gluing Ubuntu back together again.
> Ubuntu gets a CentOS (same tech, no logos) equivalant.
Wouldn't that be Debian?
Wouldn't that be Debian?
No. Ubuntu is not just Debian with logos.
It seems the already charge Dreamhost: https://twitter.com/cleverdevil/status/744622945096503297
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
>they [Canonical] should demand OVH stops calling it Ubuntu //
Hmm, if they can franchise and make some money I don't have a problem with that as long as Canonical have some oversight, such as a Canonical specified QC process for OVH to go through before release.
Hmm, if they can franchise and make some money I don't have a problem with that as long as Canonical have some oversight, such as a Canonical specified QC process for OVH to go through before release.
The EU trademark laws are the same in this regard, they don't need a permission to refer to the actual Ubuntu by its trademarked name, it would be a noninfringing nominal use.
However, it seems to be about being able to call their modified system as Ubuntu, which is exactly why trademark laws exist - Canonical is and should be the sole authority in deciding if something that's not made by them, but is somewhat similar and wants to be called Ubuntu can be called Ubuntu; they can allow it, allow it if they get paid, deny it no matter what because they don't like you, or allow it under any totally arbitrary conditions.
It may be legal to call it "an Ubuntu derived system" or "Ubuntu-compatible OS" or something like that, depending on a bunch of stuff; but if you want to make something that's almost-but-not-exactly-Ubuntu and call it Ubuntu, then it's a very risky decision.
However, it seems to be about being able to call their modified system as Ubuntu, which is exactly why trademark laws exist - Canonical is and should be the sole authority in deciding if something that's not made by them, but is somewhat similar and wants to be called Ubuntu can be called Ubuntu; they can allow it, allow it if they get paid, deny it no matter what because they don't like you, or allow it under any totally arbitrary conditions.
It may be legal to call it "an Ubuntu derived system" or "Ubuntu-compatible OS" or something like that, depending on a bunch of stuff; but if you want to make something that's almost-but-not-exactly-Ubuntu and call it Ubuntu, then it's a very risky decision.
That was my thought too. I don't understand how this is even meant to work.
The analogy that sprang to my mind is a store saying they're selling Coke; you have to be able to describe what you're saying. You can't be expected to have a flyer saying "this week only, we're selling the popular cola beverage with the red label for $2 per 2l bottle!"
The analogy that sprang to my mind is a store saying they're selling Coke; you have to be able to describe what you're saying. You can't be expected to have a flyer saying "this week only, we're selling the popular cola beverage with the red label for $2 per 2l bottle!"
Lets for the sake of argument say Coca Cola was cool with you changing their formula and selling the result.
In this case it would be the equivalent of your store opening up all the bottles of Coke and adding or removing ingredients. They can't then sell the result of their tampering as "Coke". They'd have to give it a new name, Freedom Cola, for example.
In this case it would be the equivalent of your store opening up all the bottles of Coke and adding or removing ingredients. They can't then sell the result of their tampering as "Coke". They'd have to give it a new name, Freedom Cola, for example.
Agreed. I've since seen explanations that OVH modifies Ubuntu which changes the situation hugely.
[deleted]
> 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.
This is literally "nominative use" and is explicitly allowed by US and EU law. You can name your competitor's product. You can compare your product with that of your competitors'.
You can't adulterate someone's trademark product and still use the mark to refer to the product.
This is literally "nominative use" and is explicitly allowed by US and EU law. You can name your competitor's product. You can compare your product with that of your competitors'.
You can't adulterate someone's trademark product and still use the mark to refer to the product.
[deleted]
I don't know trademark laws very well, but something like Pepsi mentioning Coca-Cola in their ads is pretty much unheard if where I live.
Competitive advertising by name is illegal in most countries. The US is one exception.
I found the recent Ford/Chevy "comparison" ad interesting in this regard. In it, they never mentioned the word "Ford", they just had "a competitor's truck", with clearly visible logos. More than most ads I have seen, they very intentionally avoided mentioning what everyone could clearly see. I wonder if this was done so they could sell the ad internationally: https://youtu.be/BTm2F4ysQrE
As an aside, I think it's a little absurd that they're trying to sell their old-tech steel truck as superior to Ford's new aluminum setup. I wonder how they will pivot their pitch in coming years when they can no longer compete with Ford and Dodge aluminum trucks that don't rust, are faster, lighter, and more fuel efficient...
As an aside, I think it's a little absurd that they're trying to sell their old-tech steel truck as superior to Ford's new aluminum setup. I wonder how they will pivot their pitch in coming years when they can no longer compete with Ford and Dodge aluminum trucks that don't rust, are faster, lighter, and more fuel efficient...
>Competitive advertising by name is illegal in most countries. //
Can you give examples? Referring to a product's origin by using the Trademark is allowed in the UK and under the harmonisation treaties I thought such big issues had been evened out across EU states trademark regulations (so that community trademarks can work).
Can you give examples? Referring to a product's origin by using the Trademark is allowed in the UK and under the harmonisation treaties I thought such big issues had been evened out across EU states trademark regulations (so that community trademarks can work).
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.
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).
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).
Downvoting should be used when the comment is inappropriate for Hacker News, not because you don't like the comment.
@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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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).
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?
Maybe they could switch to Mandriva Linux. :-k
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.
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.
""" 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
Apparently not to enough to stop using the name. Guess it has some value, after all.
[deleted]
Mozilla doesn't let people distribute modified copies of "Firefox" either. That's why Iceweasel was invented.
This situation has been resolved recently - https://glandium.org/blog/?p=3622
Mozilla just agreed on exception for Debian only.
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
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".
https://mobile.twitter.com/Hartator/status/74466202159817523...
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.
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.
Call it OVHbuntu and be done with it.
Canonical owns the -buntu suffix too, so this isn't quite enough.
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.
RHEL: £19.99/month (€25.64) from OVH UK page
People don't seem to complain that RHEL asks for money.
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.
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?
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?
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-...