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).
Which pretty much reads like the "alarmist stance" could be right. "associate it with the Trademarks" seems pretty open to interpretation without a clear statement from Canonical. If it were so clear-cut they would have no reason not to provide such a statement.
The author does not claim it isn't open source, the author claims it doesn't comply with the four freedoms.
> 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.
Mark Shuttleworth has told me that they assert copyright over all their binaries and that this restriction is intended to apply regardless of trademarks.
It could, but there's probably another explanation: if you can't use original binaries then you can't point to Ubuntu package repositories in your own distro.
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.
But if that's the whole argument then it's a gimme from the start, since Ubuntu includes non-free driver blobs and the like. They prioritise utility over "free software purity".
Came here to say this. Besides, Ubuntu has never been close to being a fully Free (Libre) distribution; like most other Linux based distros, it has a mix of Free software and closed source software and firmware.
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.
Where did they ever do that? Where did they ever bully an entity that made a derivative without using the term Ubuntu, where did they wrongly not give permission, where did they state ownership wrongly to sabotage another project?
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.
Bully: Canonical's stance also means that startups who create a business on an Ubuntu derivative (e.g. Elementary.io) may not be able to raise money, or they'll have to raise money at a discount, because of the huge risk of litigation and the risk of the results completely voiding their business.
That Canonical hasn't done it yet doesn't mean they're not sabotaging an sector.
That would only be true if those derivatives had not received a written approval by canonical. I believe elementary did, as did many others. That's my point: In practice it seems to be a non-issue.
> 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.
Canonical should be cautious about this kind of actions. They should learn the lessons from CentOS and how it impacts RedHat revenue.
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.
I'm in Europe and even some non-tech know what a Linux Mint is. And a lot of newbies I help to install Linux on their laptops explicitly ask for it as well. Many are lost with Ubuntu/Unity interface and are much more happy with Cinnamon on Mint.
Could someone explain this a bit more in detail?
Because this sounds like what Debian did with Iceweasal.
Because they modified the source of Firefox they had to remove all Firefox branding from the software.
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?
But Canonical refuses to clarify what you would have to remove in order to make Ubuntu redistributable without asking their permission.
In fact, going further, Mark Shuttleworth has plainly stated that there is no process or tool which can ever be made that would turn an Ubuntu install into something that could be redistributed, unless permission is first sought on a case by case basis:
If Canonical wanted people to be able to redistribute something based on Ubuntu, that does not infringe any Canonical trademark, then it would be very simple for them to enable that. But they don't appear to want to enable that. And without that right, Ubuntu is not free software.
Note that Canonical relies on the right to redistribute a modified version of Debian in order for Ubuntu to exist at all.
Where in the four freedoms does it say that a bit of elbow-grease is a disqualifier? Just because Ubuntu doesn't have a spoonfeeding script to do it all for you doesn't make it 'not free'. Shuttleworth points out in that link of yours that keeping tabs on such a thing and providing an auto-stripping script is a waste of their resources and of dubious use to anyone but MJG.
The truth of the matter is, that if you want to use any component of ubuntu, it's easy enough to just recompile without the trademarks and redistribute. If you want to use the whole thing but with minor changes, either just talk to them to get a license, or put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks.
> The truth of the matter is, that if you want to use any component of ubuntu, it's easy enough to just recompile without the trademarks and redistribute. If you want to use the whole thing but with minor changes, either just talk to them to get a license, or put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks.
That goes against the four freedoms of free software, though:
Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)
It also goes beyond what is covered by trademark law (due to absence of a concept of non-infringing use). That's exactly mjg59's point, btw.
You missed the bit "or put in the elbow-grease yourself". Software can be free yet still require you to remove their trademarks. Look at pretty much any other distro, for example. You aren't asking to use the software, you're asking to use the trademark. Put in the work to remove the trademark yourself, and the software violates none of the four freedoms.
Elsewhere in this thread you're pinging someone else about spreading misinformation. You're doing the same thing yourself.
No, because Canonical's requirements go beyond trademark law, which has a notion of non-infringing use. Canonical use copyright law to force you to remove every mention of any of their trademarks, and have publicly stated that there is no tool that can remove all such references and you basically always have to ask for permission (see Mark Shuttleworth's comment, which was linked elsewhere in this discussion). That certainly doesn't meet the requirements of free software.
> To support a trademark infringement claim in court, a plaintiff must prove that it owns a valid mark, that it has priority (its rights in the mark(s) are "senior" to the defendant's), and that the defendant's mark is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers about the source or sponsorship of the goods or services offered under the parties' marks.
Note the last bit, "is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers about the source or sponsorship of the goods or services offered". Canonical's IP policy requires removal of all mentions of the trademark, even if they do not meet these requirements.
The relevant stanza is "IF you associate with the trademarks THEN you need approval and certification. OTHERWISE just remove the trademarks. IF you need that approval and certification, THEN you need licensing".
Where does it go beyond trademark law? They even later on explicitly state you can parody them, just don't suggest endorsement without a license.
> see Mark Shuttleworth's comment, which was linked elsewhere in this discussion
In that link, nowhere does he say "there is no tool". He says that Canonical is not going to do the ongoing work required. Nothing is stopping someone else from making the tool and keeping it up to date. He does say that there is no work that will change Ubuntu's position on derivatives.
He does give a 'boiled down' summary, which you're taking out of context. As someone talking about licenses should know, 'summaries' don't count, only the actual wording does. He's made a comment on a mailing list, not a formal presentation of policy.
Gladly: 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 means that if you don't associate it with the trademarks, you have to remove and replace the trademarks AND recompile the source. Note that this covers any use of the trademarks, not just infringing ones. You gloss over that case as "just remove the trademark", but trademark law doesn't require that if the use isn't infringing. So Canonical are using copyright law to prevent non-infringing uses of their trademarks.
In a letter of the law sort of way Ubuntu could still be following that. You're completely free to redistribute an unmodified or modified version so long as your modifications include stripping the Ubuntu marks. Of course that's very much against the spirit of the freedoms.
It's a tricky position trying to build a company around OSS free software. On the one hand you have the principals of free software on the other you have the fact that people distributing crapified version of your software with your name still on it means you're getting a lot of support and complaints that cost money to deal with even if it's just to determine that it's Crap-Ubuntu and not the version you've made.
Well that's the point that Matthew has been making all these years. The problem is that Canonical say "you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries", no matter whether the use of the trademark is infringing (neither Matthew nor I have an argument with that, they need to protect their trademarks) or not (this is where they use copyright law to require removal of the trademark, even if trademark law wouldn't require it).
Nobody's arguing that you should be allowed to take an Ubuntu image, mess it up, and distribute the result under the name Ubuntu. That would clearly infringe on Canonical's trademarks.
Trademark law can vary. As I understand it can be easy to lose a trademark if you let it become generic.
So it may not violate trademark law but it could dilute a trademark.
Also the section on packaging for distribution in the GNU Philosophy says requests to remove logos and names, i.e. trademarks, before a downstream party can distribute the rest is acceptable.
As I understand it, many of the most useful packages are from upstream anyway. It's mostly Canonical metapackages that define Upstream packages to install that are in question and they contain canonical logos and names
It states a couple times at least that upholding the core tenets are key. Ubuntu isn't creating scenario such that distribution is now impossible, or claiming control over the upstream which are arguably the most valuable.
Could be a good project. A Canonical free "Ubuntu" that replaces their metapackages yet results in a nearly identical OS. Problem solved.
Really one could probably just write some Ansible to do this to Debian these days.
Regardless, a solution is readily in reach for sufficiently skilled users. Given that, I have a hard time taking this as nothing more than kicking up dust for the sake of being right
put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks
Mark Shuttleworth has made it clear that in Canonical's opinion there is nothing you can do that would let you skip the step of asking their permission on a case by case basis.
Canonical will not answer a straight-forward question such as "if every instance of every registered Canonical trademark were removed, would that be sufficient?"
You're not even being internally consistent. In your first statement you say that he's made it clear that 'nothing' can be done to avoid asking permission.
In the second statement you say he's being evasive on the same issue.
So, give me a few links of these 'many times', because you're not exactly being the most reliable source yourself.
Canonical are being evasive on the issue. mjg shows that because we cannot be sure of what Canonical believe and what they will put their lawyers towards, we have to ask Canonical's permission to redistribute Ubuntu no matter what we do to it.
"Mark Shuttleworth has made it clear that in Canonical's opinion". Forgive me for treating the two entities as one and the same, but the point remains the same in the GP's comment. First, Canonical's position is "made clear", and secondly it's evasive.
You guys will do amazing dances to avoid sticking to a line of reasoning. You'll pan Shuttleworth for not giving you the answers you want, and then turn around and claim he's not representative of Canonical when it suits you. You'll quite happily take MJG's opinion as legally binding fact, but refuse to take Shuttleworth's opinion of MJG misrepresenting and misquoting discussions they've had together. That link above of Shuttleworth's is pretty clear in why he's not interested in talking to MJG and his loaded (in Shuttleworth's opinion) requests.
Save us from the fucking puritans, who have to sling shit at a project that's done more than most at actually putting non-proprietary software into the hands of people all over the world. I donate to the Software Freedom Conservancy, so free software is at least somewhat important to me, but you know what else is important? Not wasting everyone's time and energy nit-picking over shitty, trivial points. Pretending that it's not clear what the IP policy says: remove the trademarks and recompile and you're sorted. MJG's "interpretation" is a "squint hard and look sideways" interpretation - the relevant bit explicitly says "if you are going to associate it with the trademarks". Pretending that they reserve the right to send lawyers after you if you strip the trademarks and don't associate it with the trademark is just fiction.
The sad fucking thing is that all the people with hate-boners about ubuntu and this issue of MJG's actually don't want to use ubuntu. They just say they do to make their case. "Oh, I really want to use your Unity and Mir, but I'll shit all over you on trivialities because Canonical is all NIH on projects like Unity and Mir". It's really dishonest. And it's why, in that link, Shuttleworth is saying that it's a lot of work for Canonical, all for something that the complainers aren't actually going to use.
Disclaimer: I use debian myself. I just get tired of progressives infighting over bullshit.
Yes, Canonical's position is made clear that you have to ask them or they might decide that to screw you over in the future. They've made this position clear by refusing to clarify how they would respond, and therefore requiring that you ask them on a case-by-case basis.
Sorry, I screwed up a name, I'm not close to this issue and didn't realise the blog poster is not named Mark, and that Mark is the head of Ubuntu.
"plainly stated that there is no process or tool which can ever be made that would turn an Ubuntu install into something that could be redistributed"
Mark Shuttleworth is referring to the process to redistribute something called "Ubuntu".
You could certainly create and distribute a tool that would strip trademarks from Ubuntu, and distribute both that tool and your hacked version of Ubuntu, as long as you don't call it Ubuntu. Nobody's willing to do that simply because a version of Ubuntu not called Ubuntu isn't worth much to most people interested in doing such a thing.
If OVH called their hacked-up version of Ubuntu "OVHuntu" they'd lose some of their customers to competitors who have a "real" Ubuntu install option.
Mark Shuttleworth is referring to the process to redistribute something called "Ubuntu".
The email from Mark seems extremely clear that Canonical's position is that there is no way to distribute a derivative of Ubuntu without 1) joining the Ubuntu community, and 2) asking for permission to distribute.
It does not clarify that all you need to do is remove Canonical's trademarks. It flat out just says that you can't distribute a derivative without permission.
Mark's email is a response to one asking for guidance on what would have to be removed in order to do perform non-infringing distribution. It doesn't ask Ubuntu to do this work of removal. It asks Ubuntu to identify what work needs to be done. mjg59 suggests that he will do the work, possibly by means of having his upload privileges to Ubuntu reinstated. That seems to be an indication of him being willing to do it.
The reply then comes from Mark stating that there is no work that could be done to enable this.
You could certainly create and distribute a tool that would strip trademarks from Ubuntu, and distribute both that tool and your hacked version of Ubuntu, as long as you don't call it Ubuntu.
That appears to be the sort of thing that mjg59 proposed to create, but was told that would never be allowed. Mark's email is literally a response to a request for clarity on what needs to be done to not infringe, i.e. how to do what you are suggesting is permitted.
> possibly by means of having his upload privileges to Ubuntu reinstated. That seems to be an indication of him being willing to do it.
He wouldn't need upload rights, he could do the work and ask an Ubuntu Developer to review and sponsor it. In fact, anybody can contribute anything to Ubuntu this way, doesn't matter if you're an old kernel hacker or a total newbie.
From a quick scroll through your comment history here, it seems that you have a personal agenda to defend Canonical and defame Matthew Garret. You have been called out on it before, yet you continue to spread this misinformation. It seems like the person who "tries confuse people about this" isn't Matthew Garret, it's you.
Hacker News is not a platform for carrying out personal vendettas, as this account has been using it primarily for. We ban accounts that abuse the site like this, so please stop.
The Ubuntu images OVH ships (I assume they're the european provider) are bundled with an old, unpatched kernel and you need to install the one from the repos manually.
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.
FYI, apart from the kernel, OVH's "Ubuntu" image also adds their SSH key to the root user (http://help.ovh.co.uk/InstallOvhKey) and pre-installs some monitoring daemon.
Yes, either that or a dedicated sudo-enabled account. It's a slight step up from the older setups where they had a dedicated account with a common password known to all the second-level and higher techs.
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.
> Wow, didn't know that. Good thing I usually block root access.
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`.
I'd assume they are talking about the typical practice of disallowing ssh logins as root (instead logging in as a user and then using sudo for administrative tasks)
Thanks, I didn't pick that up, although I often do that on my SSH config. For some reason, "block root access" in lieu of "block root log-in" just didn't register for me as referring to SSH config. Thank you for explaining instead of just downvoting.
Recalling back a couple of years ago when people talked about this, Ubuntu added "This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu.", resulting in that copyleft software is unaffected by the condition but permissive license must be recompiled. A rather imperfect situation, and it seems that no much has changed since 2015.
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.
This is Matthew Garrett (mjg59), and he has a hate against the Ubuntu project that goes back several years.
The way he works is that he finds something that he interprets as questionable (his words: "it can be interpreted as meaning"), and then starts screaming because he needs ASAP an official reply.
The climate-change deniers employ this technique and you get ordinary people questioning the scientists.
His employer should comment on this since what CoreOS is doing and what is offered by Ubuntu Core do overlap.
You're not being fair to him. He asked Canonical for clarification multiple times, and they refuse to clarify what their IP policy actually entails. He's given them years to do so, and they haven't. That's not "needs ASAP an official reply".
Ubuntu's policies on this matter were so unclear that the FSF had to get involved and it took them years to get Canonical to change the terms such that they don't violate the GPL. Even after that, it's still an unclear policy.
I fail to see the problem- either don't change the image in a meaningful way or recompile without the name ubuntu and call it something else.
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.
That post was written by Matthew Garrett, and he has written many similar posts against Ubuntu over the years.
His previous rant was about the snaps in Ubuntu. That they are not fully secure (contained) because Linux distributions are still based X11. It's a one-sided hate directed specifically against Ubuntu.
That isn't enough. Mark Shuttleworth had said you cannot simply remove all trademarks, that may not be sufficient. they don't document what needs removing, and thus it's fairly difficult to actually "just" removing trademarks.
Not according to Canonical, or this article: every redistribution of Ubuntu's binary packages, under what name or flag whatsoever, requires written approval from Canonical.
The problem here is not about the repositories, but that an hosting provider installs broken Ubuntu images to its customers calling them "Ubuntu", which is infringing the trademark policy.
Of course, the point is that they can't be refuted. They're not claims for which a refutation is a well-defined concept.
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.
It was never about "corruption" in journalism, especially not in gaming journalism. If it had been, it would have focused on AAA devs rather than a random indie developer who was a woman.
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. You are obligated to take seriously the claim that this is about ethics in journalism, when it simultaneously is and isn't, and yet 'piotrjurkiewicz feels no obligation to take what I said seriously.
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:
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.
If you can figure out a way to make introduce your general argument without referencing anti-semitism, you will be much less open to hijacking of the conversation in just the way you observe here. Especially in online discussions, introducing flame-war inducing topics even in passing is likely to derail the conversation.
I understand 'geofft was quoting Sartre (and it's a great quote). I'm arguing that while the quote might be useful and perfectly appropriate to the context, that it's a poor choice to introduce in an online discussion where the interlocutors are already adversarial. Anti-semitism is accidental to the argument, but is easy for someone to uncharitably grab on to, derailing the discussion and leading to a flame war. 'geofft even points this out:
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 think you, too, are falling for the trick he was describing, of taking someone at their word who is manifestly unwilling to be held to their own word. It's hard to read 'geofft's comment and think of a way he could have been clearer that he was not calling commenters anti-Semites.
I feel like I’m being daft here. I’m going to beg your patience and ask a
favor: if there’s something I’m saying that you agree with, or that you at
least don’t think I’m wrong about, would you point it out? I can’t tell I’m
completely off base or am just missing subtle (or somewhere in between).
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.
I don't think Guardian is a trustworthy source on this, having in mind their heavy left bias. They won't present any arguments which could undermine the narration that it was pure anti-women witchhunt, simply because it won't fit their ideological line.
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.
Please argue from facts rather than accusations of bias. Otherwise you can never get to the heart of the matter: you can always dismiss your interlocutor or some source because of bias, or position, which everyone has because we're human.
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.
Ironically, Ubuntu is the only distribution I can't figure out how to install on my desktop (I run debian, centos, and gentoo just fine). Some problem with refresh rates or resolution of my monitor, so Ubuntu's installer can't start.
5-15 years ago, I recommended Ubuntu to others because of the ease of their installers. These days I recommend Debian.
If something is called 'Ubuntu', I expect Ubuntu to be inside and not some (heavily) modified code. Wouldn't want my own open source software to be associated with a (maybe faulty) derivative either.
Quoting the article: If someone claims that something is Ubuntu when it isn't, that's probably an infringement of the trademark and it's entirely reasonable for the trademark owner to take action to protect the value associated with their trademark. But Canonical's IP policy goes much further than that - it can be interpreted as meaning[1] that you can't distribute works based on Ubuntu without paying Canonical for the privilege, even if you call it something other than Ubuntu.
I have to admit I was (and am) anti-ubuntu, because of stuff like this from Mark and Canonical, but for a while it was the only distro that just worked with no problems on my work macbook pro, so I succumbed for practicalities sake. Now that I am working on my own projects full-time, I have switched to fedora on my desktop.
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.
Yeah, Ubuntu was revolutionary when it came out, because it made Debian accessible to a much broader audience and fixed all sorts of small but important hangnails, at a time when that was exactly what was needed.
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.
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.
One of the things about releasing source code under various licenses is that it can’t be made purposely difficult to maintain: e.g. you can’t release obfuscated garbage that “technically” compiles into the binary that you released, you must release the code that you actually maintain so any type of modification is feasible.
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.
101 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 181 ms ] threadAny 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.
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.
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?
The whole "story" is just an interpretation of his about some wording, and he shouts because his own interpretation goes too far away.
He has written many similar articles against Ubuntu and they tend to be dubious.
In fact, going further, Mark Shuttleworth has plainly stated that there is no process or tool which can ever be made that would turn an Ubuntu install into something that could be redistributed, unless permission is first sought on a case by case basis:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-Novem...
If Canonical wanted people to be able to redistribute something based on Ubuntu, that does not infringe any Canonical trademark, then it would be very simple for them to enable that. But they don't appear to want to enable that. And without that right, Ubuntu is not free software.
Note that Canonical relies on the right to redistribute a modified version of Debian in order for Ubuntu to exist at all.
The truth of the matter is, that if you want to use any component of ubuntu, it's easy enough to just recompile without the trademarks and redistribute. If you want to use the whole thing but with minor changes, either just talk to them to get a license, or put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks.
That goes against the four freedoms of free software, though:
Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)
It also goes beyond what is covered by trademark law (due to absence of a concept of non-infringing use). That's exactly mjg59's point, btw.
Elsewhere in this thread you're pinging someone else about spreading misinformation. You're doing the same thing yourself.
> To support a trademark infringement claim in court, a plaintiff must prove that it owns a valid mark, that it has priority (its rights in the mark(s) are "senior" to the defendant's), and that the defendant's mark is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers about the source or sponsorship of the goods or services offered under the parties' marks.
Note the last bit, "is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers about the source or sponsorship of the goods or services offered". Canonical's IP policy requires removal of all mentions of the trademark, even if they do not meet these requirements.
https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual...
The relevant stanza is "IF you associate with the trademarks THEN you need approval and certification. OTHERWISE just remove the trademarks. IF you need that approval and certification, THEN you need licensing".
Where does it go beyond trademark law? They even later on explicitly state you can parody them, just don't suggest endorsement without a license.
> see Mark Shuttleworth's comment, which was linked elsewhere in this discussion
The only link of Shuttleworth's in this thread is: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-Novem...
In that link, nowhere does he say "there is no tool". He says that Canonical is not going to do the ongoing work required. Nothing is stopping someone else from making the tool and keeping it up to date. He does say that there is no work that will change Ubuntu's position on derivatives.
He does give a 'boiled down' summary, which you're taking out of context. As someone talking about licenses should know, 'summaries' don't count, only the actual wording does. He's made a comment on a mailing list, not a formal presentation of policy.
This means that if you don't associate it with the trademarks, you have to remove and replace the trademarks AND recompile the source. Note that this covers any use of the trademarks, not just infringing ones. You gloss over that case as "just remove the trademark", but trademark law doesn't require that if the use isn't infringing. So Canonical are using copyright law to prevent non-infringing uses of their trademarks.
It's a tricky position trying to build a company around OSS free software. On the one hand you have the principals of free software on the other you have the fact that people distributing crapified version of your software with your name still on it means you're getting a lot of support and complaints that cost money to deal with even if it's just to determine that it's Crap-Ubuntu and not the version you've made.
Nobody's arguing that you should be allowed to take an Ubuntu image, mess it up, and distribute the result under the name Ubuntu. That would clearly infringe on Canonical's trademarks.
So it may not violate trademark law but it could dilute a trademark.
Also the section on packaging for distribution in the GNU Philosophy says requests to remove logos and names, i.e. trademarks, before a downstream party can distribute the rest is acceptable.
As I understand it, many of the most useful packages are from upstream anyway. It's mostly Canonical metapackages that define Upstream packages to install that are in question and they contain canonical logos and names
It states a couple times at least that upholding the core tenets are key. Ubuntu isn't creating scenario such that distribution is now impossible, or claiming control over the upstream which are arguably the most valuable.
Could be a good project. A Canonical free "Ubuntu" that replaces their metapackages yet results in a nearly identical OS. Problem solved.
Really one could probably just write some Ansible to do this to Debian these days.
Regardless, a solution is readily in reach for sufficiently skilled users. Given that, I have a hard time taking this as nothing more than kicking up dust for the sake of being right
Mark Shuttleworth has made it clear that in Canonical's opinion there is nothing you can do that would let you skip the step of asking their permission on a case by case basis.
Canonical will not answer a straight-forward question such as "if every instance of every registered Canonical trademark were removed, would that be sufficient?"
This sort of thing has been asked many times.
In the second statement you say he's being evasive on the same issue.
So, give me a few links of these 'many times', because you're not exactly being the most reliable source yourself.
EDIT: screwed up a name.
You guys will do amazing dances to avoid sticking to a line of reasoning. You'll pan Shuttleworth for not giving you the answers you want, and then turn around and claim he's not representative of Canonical when it suits you. You'll quite happily take MJG's opinion as legally binding fact, but refuse to take Shuttleworth's opinion of MJG misrepresenting and misquoting discussions they've had together. That link above of Shuttleworth's is pretty clear in why he's not interested in talking to MJG and his loaded (in Shuttleworth's opinion) requests.
Save us from the fucking puritans, who have to sling shit at a project that's done more than most at actually putting non-proprietary software into the hands of people all over the world. I donate to the Software Freedom Conservancy, so free software is at least somewhat important to me, but you know what else is important? Not wasting everyone's time and energy nit-picking over shitty, trivial points. Pretending that it's not clear what the IP policy says: remove the trademarks and recompile and you're sorted. MJG's "interpretation" is a "squint hard and look sideways" interpretation - the relevant bit explicitly says "if you are going to associate it with the trademarks". Pretending that they reserve the right to send lawyers after you if you strip the trademarks and don't associate it with the trademark is just fiction.
The sad fucking thing is that all the people with hate-boners about ubuntu and this issue of MJG's actually don't want to use ubuntu. They just say they do to make their case. "Oh, I really want to use your Unity and Mir, but I'll shit all over you on trivialities because Canonical is all NIH on projects like Unity and Mir". It's really dishonest. And it's why, in that link, Shuttleworth is saying that it's a lot of work for Canonical, all for something that the complainers aren't actually going to use.
Disclaimer: I use debian myself. I just get tired of progressives infighting over bullshit.
Sorry, I screwed up a name, I'm not close to this issue and didn't realise the blog poster is not named Mark, and that Mark is the head of Ubuntu.
Welcome to law. You're not going to get a specific answer to a generic question.
Mark Shuttleworth is referring to the process to redistribute something called "Ubuntu".
You could certainly create and distribute a tool that would strip trademarks from Ubuntu, and distribute both that tool and your hacked version of Ubuntu, as long as you don't call it Ubuntu. Nobody's willing to do that simply because a version of Ubuntu not called Ubuntu isn't worth much to most people interested in doing such a thing.
If OVH called their hacked-up version of Ubuntu "OVHuntu" they'd lose some of their customers to competitors who have a "real" Ubuntu install option.
The email from Mark seems extremely clear that Canonical's position is that there is no way to distribute a derivative of Ubuntu without 1) joining the Ubuntu community, and 2) asking for permission to distribute.
It does not clarify that all you need to do is remove Canonical's trademarks. It flat out just says that you can't distribute a derivative without permission.
Mark's email is a response to one asking for guidance on what would have to be removed in order to do perform non-infringing distribution. It doesn't ask Ubuntu to do this work of removal. It asks Ubuntu to identify what work needs to be done. mjg59 suggests that he will do the work, possibly by means of having his upload privileges to Ubuntu reinstated. That seems to be an indication of him being willing to do it.
The reply then comes from Mark stating that there is no work that could be done to enable this.
You could certainly create and distribute a tool that would strip trademarks from Ubuntu, and distribute both that tool and your hacked version of Ubuntu, as long as you don't call it Ubuntu.
That appears to be the sort of thing that mjg59 proposed to create, but was told that would never be allowed. Mark's email is literally a response to a request for clarity on what needs to be done to not infringe, i.e. how to do what you are suggesting is permitted.
He wouldn't need upload rights, he could do the work and ask an Ubuntu Developer to review and sponsor it. In fact, anybody can contribute anything to Ubuntu this way, doesn't matter if you're an old kernel hacker or a total newbie.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10614110 is a particularly classy ad-hominem attack on him.
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.
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.
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.
I am also running Docker on one of them just fine.
OVH does not install any SSH keys on the servers.
https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934459
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.
The way he works is that he finds something that he interprets as questionable (his words: "it can be interpreted as meaning"), and then starts screaming because he needs ASAP an official reply.
The climate-change deniers employ this technique and you get ordinary people questioning the scientists.
His employer should comment on this since what CoreOS is doing and what is offered by Ubuntu Core do overlap.
These posts are not personal posts anymore.
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.
His previous rant was about the snaps in Ubuntu. That they are not fully secure (contained) because Linux distributions are still based X11. It's a one-sided hate directed specifically against Ubuntu.
If only someone revealed to him Oracle's "Unbreakable" Linux and http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulle...
> For avoidance of doubt, any comments arguing this point [my point of view] will be replaced with the phrase "Fart fart fart".
https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html
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.
5-15 years ago, I recommended Ubuntu to others because of the ease of their installers. These days I recommend Debian.
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.
news.ycombinator.com is free. Also, trademarked. 7/11 slurpies are free on 7/11. Also, trademarked.
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.
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.