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.
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.
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.
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, ...
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).
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.
> 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.
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.
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!"
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] rgbrenner|9 years ago|reply
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-...
[+] [-] nfm|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] coolsunglasses|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angry-hacker|9 years ago|reply
Looks like everyone took their pitchforks out too soon.
[+] [-] 980120100|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmontra|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shorel|9 years ago|reply
Probably using OpenVZ virtualization software which forces them to have the same kernel in host and guests.
[+] [-] rodgerd|9 years ago|reply
How much to they pay Debian for using a modified version of Debian?
[+] [-] zimbatm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comice|9 years ago|reply
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_|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] PeterisP|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Lazare|9 years ago|reply
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!"
[+] [-] gonzo|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wodenokoto|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vrutkovs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grizzles|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nmstoker|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hartator|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pkaye|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nailer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tamana|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vrutkovs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tacone|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vacri|9 years ago|reply
RHEL: £19.99/month (€25.64) from OVH UK page
People don't seem to complain that RHEL asks for money.
[+] [-] joepie91_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mirimir|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qu4z-2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smartbit|9 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] inputjoker|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vegabook|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nyr|9 years ago|reply
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...
[+] [-] userbinator|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YokoZar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shorel|9 years ago|reply
In that case, they don't need to pay Canonical anything, and the OVH users would have a better OS to install.
[+] [-] davb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sangnoir|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clopez|9 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/cleverdevil/status/744622945096503297
[+] [-] icebraining|9 years ago|reply