by rgbrenner on 6/19/2016, 10:06:28 PM
by comice on 6/19/2016, 9:29:59 PM
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).
by dsr_ on 6/19/2016, 9:00:40 PM
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.
by vrutkovs on 6/19/2016, 8:56:40 PM
It seems the already charge Dreamhost: https://twitter.com/cleverdevil/status/744622945096503297
by grizzles on 6/19/2016, 9:33:51 PM
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.
by nmstoker on 6/19/2016, 9:37:26 PM
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?
by hartator on 6/19/2016, 10:48:12 PM
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.
by alrs on 6/19/2016, 8:41:47 PM
This will be great news for Debian. Thank you, Canonical.
by tamana on 6/19/2016, 10:20:16 PM
Mozilla doesn't let people distribute modified copies of "Firefox" either. That's why Iceweasel was invented.
by tacone on 6/19/2016, 9:29:02 PM
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.
by vacri on 6/20/2016, 2:10:58 AM
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.
by mirimir on 6/19/2016, 8:55:07 PM
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.
by smartbit on 6/20/2016, 4:20:03 PM
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.
by inputjoker on 6/19/2016, 8:14:01 PM
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.
by Nyr on 6/19/2016, 8:12:03 PM
Not the first time which Canonical attempts to abuse their trademark...
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...
by userbinator on 6/19/2016, 11:30:24 PM
Call it OVHbuntu and be done with it.
by Shorel on 6/20/2016, 5:53:19 PM
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.
by davb on 6/19/2016, 10:51:27 PM
How do various open source licences treat naming rights for derivative works?
by clopez on 6/19/2016, 10:02:08 PM
""" They do the same to us at @DreamHost and I’ve always felt it was inappropriate. """
by andmarios on 6/19/2016, 9:44:14 PM
Maybe they could switch to Mandriva Linux. :-k
by pmontra on 6/19/2016, 9:27:02 PM
@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.
by mark_l_watson on 6/19/2016, 9:53:46 PM
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.
by chmike on 6/19/2016, 9:22:23 PM
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.
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-...