New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
If a provider pays and raises prices across the board even for those who do not use Ubuntu then yes that's an issue, but I don't see that.
Let's not forget who this is all coming from, Octave, a big drama queen at the best of times.
So, is this accurate?
OVH: "Hey everyone, you can run UBUNTU Linux on our VPSes!"
Canonical: "Fuck that, we don't want more users unless they pay us."
I vote we make a binary-compatible fork of Ubuntu.
Call it "Community User-Neutral unTrademarked Operating System"
Or, if you want to shorten it, CuntOS.
That's not how trademarks work. It is foolish to attempt to use them in that manner.
I can licence and/or charge someone for using my brand identity all day long. Is it practical or wise to try and stop everyone using it? In most cases no, in some cases yes.
Tell me how trademarks really work then.
Ever heard of fair use? You don't need to pay for just mentioning Ubuntu as an available OS to install...
There's speculation that this may be because OVH offers a modified version of Ubuntu and their IP rights policy addresses that:
http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy
I can live without Ubuntu. So much happy with Debian and Arch.
Yes Ubuntu isn't all - but still many use and like it. I wonder if they will ask more hosts to pay soon ...
On login, the user sees an ASCII art picture of Nekki's avatar. This is wired into the kernel and cannot be changed.
Well, the project WOULD need an altered artistic vision, and Nekki would be a great mascot.
All the more reason not to use Ubuntu. Debian is just find for what I do.
That does add a bit of a wrinkle. But, as much as Ubuntu might like to assert otherwise, it can't really prevent someone from saying that a Ubuntu-based distribution is Ubuntu-based (just as Ubuntu can freely say they're Debian-based). It's a statement of fact.
Also keep in mind that there is a pretty big gulf between "redistribution" and "internal commercial use". Is OVH (or anyone else) actually doing a true redistribution of Ubuntu, or merely installing a modified version on their own machines? If push came to shove, I doubt anything Ubuntu is trying would hold up in court.
It's very clear that this is simply an attempt at a money grab, and by the looks of it, already works fine for them with other companies.
Not a very moral way to fund Canonical if you ask me, pretty close to extortion actually.
Easy to setup. Love the add-apt-repository stuff.
(this is coming from a guy whose 100% servers are Ubuntu 14.04/16.04)
A trademark is not a software license. I repeat, a trademark is not a software license. Seems to be a recent trend that open source companies are trying to use it that way. All they have to do is put their trademark in the source code and then say you are abusing it by altering the code or even just for distributing it.
It's an abuse of trademark laws and open source licensing. If you can afford to fight it you would likely win. Most people don't fight it though which is what these companies are counting on. Also, like so many other things in the US legal system, existing laws are badly broken and open to abuse because the laws are not crystal clear on this issue.
They can go after you for using their trademarked name in a domain name though. That is a clear violation of the spirit of the law. It basically says that you cannot try use someones trademarked name in a way that gives the impression you represent them or are associated with them in some way. In this case it's obvious that he is not but he still would likely lose a legal fight. Using trademarked names in domain names is a big no no.
I've been to a lawfirm, meeting room cupboards full of wine... Just saying.
I think the problem is that OVH isn't doing that. They could call it OVH Linux and say it's based on Ubuntu, and that'd be OK. Right now they're just calling it Ubuntu.
Top comment in the reddit thread:
Calm down guys.
Say what you want about Canonical, I would never have started using gnu/linux as a daily driver without the Ubuntu LTS concept.
I still only use LTS releases, upgrading after the first point release comes out.
The money grab sounds bizarre. Over to Hacker news to watch the lawyer coders argue it.
Er so why are all of you jumping on the bandwagon of fuck Ubuntu. Ubuntu sucks!
How about the fact ovh modify the stock kernel so you know, it's technically not Ubuntu anymore - yet ovh put the trademarked logo on their site? That is the problem.
semantics
Wait, Ubuntu wants my money?
This.
Disclaimer goes here: I learned Linux on Debian eons ago, I'm not an Ubuntu fanboy, I don't like Canonical very much either. I also wouldn't use their desktop distro if you paid me, fuck that shit.
Anyway, since a lot of you don't seem to use Ubuntu much I'm just going to say that I like to use their server distro for the newer packages. While I'm sure I could grab a backport(if the package has any?) in Debian, compile myself, or something like that that it doesn't mean I want to bother. A lot of the time Ubuntu server is just "easier" if all I want is Debian with newer-ish packages. Plus they don't seem to ship any weird shit in their server images, unlike their desktop ones.
Now, the above being said, I would certainly not die if OVH chose to get rid of Ubuntu entirely. I can just as well use something "better" like FreeBSD or Arch Linux, but once again that doesn't mean I want to bother.
KVM performance on 3.X vs. 4.X is WORLDS different, especially in memory management and ballooning. Debian, neither 7 nor 8, have a recent 4.* kernel, not even 4.0, as default or fully supported (i.e. not just a kernel but also lib wise). 3.8 to 4 also has improvements in CPU management and support for newer CPU extensions (E5 v4/E7 v3/Skylake iirc).
As said before OVH also modifies various things - as does Dreamhost - which includes their -ovh hardened kernel, which is explicitly prohibited by the Ubuntu license. A stock kernel would mean they would not need to pay.
This is a simple case of trademark protection, the product is modified but sold (sale is appropriate here, it's part of a paid package) as original.
Unless something's changed, DigitalOcean boots their VMs into a kernel stored outside the VPS's filesystem - which only makes sense if they're modifying it somehow. So maybe DO's next on the cash hit list.
They load the kernel external still, yea, from look of it it's 100% stock though (at least on Ubuntu). ZA and UK patents and copyright (Ubuntu is sort-of based between UK, Isle of Man and South Africa) are also very hard to enforce in the US, Dreamhost likely just did not want to go to court.
Help me to understand this. So OVH modified ubuntu distro? Of course they need to pay. Uh why would us customers need to pay for free OS? Come on OVH, give us back a default untouched ubuntu. Screw you centos lovers.
They only need to pay if they continue to refer to the modified version as ubuntu. If they call it ovhbuntu or fubuntu or whatever then they won't have to pay. The problem is that their customers will be confused by a name change and that will lead to a loss of sales and/or higher support load.
@rokok the bit about "support and community" is interesting. Ubuntu actually has a larger community but Debian benefits from both Ubuntu and its own communities. Often you find solutions to problems in Debian on Ubuntu boards!
Goodbye Ubuntu, I don't want to see you again
I love Debian