Canonical Takes Stand Against Unofficial Ubuntu Images, Reportedly Risky & Insecure

[k1l_]

That's pretty vague. If you install Ubuntu you can install anything you want. PPA, packages from questionable sources, etc. If you're a company then Canonical wants money from you. If you're not a company then it's ok?

It's cool that Canonical wants to make money, but it's weird that what some groups can do is disallowed for others in ways that do not really make sense.

Its about redistribution of changed Images. Not about you installing crappy stuff on your own.
Just Change Canonical with redhat and Ubuntu with rhel. Now See redhat complaining that a hoster preinstalls broken/insecure rhel Images. Would you still make the same Statement?

[k1l_]

I hope they are denied; they should not legally be allowed to have anything removed, even if it were in the same country. You can customize Windows installs with DISM and screw them up, too, but I've never heard of Microsoft going after anyone for a crappy custom Windows installer. You don't see Google trying to get custom versions of Android with manufacturer "skins" removed from existence.

How absolutely ridiculous. Shuttleworth is out of control as usual and continues to be a divisive force with Linux. If they take this to court, I hope not only do they lose, but that the lawsuit is declared frivolous, requiring Canonical to pay defense fees.

Your Statement is just ridiculous and shows that there is too much uninformed hate against Ubuntu and Canonical due to the FUD some (commercial) competitors spread.

[sdack]

This is as bad as RedHat inventing the systemd monstrosity, which has taken over our distros... *lol*

[jacob]

IANAL but wouldn't that be simply a trademark issue? Ubuntu *is* free software, the mystery European company can make changes to the images it distributes (broken or otherwise), but then it can't call it Ubuntu. Let them rename their version to Suckbuntu or Bugbuntu or whatever and all will be fine. That's my understanding anyway.

[Britoid]

IANAL but wouldn't that be simply a trademark issue? Ubuntu *is* free software, the mystery European company can make changes to the images it distributes (broken or otherwise), but then it can't call it Ubuntu. Let them rename their version to Suckbuntu or Bugbuntu or whatever and all will be fine. That's my understanding anyway.

Pretty much spot on.

If you want it called Ubuntu, you have to (understandably) follow Canonical's rules, it's there brand and they want to protect it.

[CanalGuada]

@ubuntu asks us to bill you 1e-2e per month for each VPS/PCI/PCC/SD. If not, prohibition to use the mark "Ubuntu" on our website.

Sounds like this is not really about security updates or protecting users from blocked (by which provider ?) updates.

[timofonic]

Ubuntu is an unofficial Debian image.

Not just unofficial, but TAINTED and non-free stuff built-in

[lowflyer]

If the grapevine is correct, *and* the said company is OVH. Then this is, according Wikipedia, the company that hosts Wikileaks. I mean this - just to add some political dimension to the issue ...

[TheBlackCat]

That's because they are probably assuming most people won't don their tinfoil hats and start talking about a conspiracy between Canonical, the Greys, Reptilians, NWO and sapient Chemtrails.

They have been flat-out told that their statement is legally ambiguous and they refuse to clarify.

Most people will just assume they want to just dissuade them from using the ubuntu trademark on a third party product.

Oh, you would do great as a lawyer. Just assume that a company is going to interpret their license in a way that is best for you. You would get laughed out of court.

[TheBlackCat]

If you want it called Ubuntu, you have to (understandably) follow Canonical's rules, it's there brand and they want to protect it.

The problem is that the rules are ambiguously worded, so no one outside of Canonical is entirely sure what they actually are, and Canonical refuses to explain.