Bashing-omHitting the rain locker ... back in a bit .02:04
OerHekstomorrow thunder and rain .. i put shampoo in my hair and let the dog out02:04
Bashing-omOerHeks: Uh Huh ^^, been there done that too . Try life with no water heater and on a very cold well for water . Welcome them summer rains and water running off the roof !02:30
lotuspsychjegood morning to all03:07
BluesKajHiyas all11:44
blackflowlinuxperia: so just to finish my though from #ubuntu. the thing is, the license does not _require_ anyone, even google, to pay for such use. if google would donate to Canonical, or use paid services that's another thing, but, as I said, don't count on it.14:32
linuxperiablackflow: thanks for the clarification. but you said itslef that canoncial can request payment for trademark usage see canonical can only enfornce payments for trademark (ab)use.14:35
linuxperiait looks like here is where we have a difference in understanding14:37
linuxperiai am paying for ubuntu servers about 200 USD on the gcloud every month14:37
blackflowlinuxperia: no, you're paying for gcloud. whatever you install there is not part of that price.14:38
linuxperiathey make a business buy offerung ubuntu server images with the ubuntu logo owned by canonical14:38
blackflowthat's the very important distinction.14:38
blackflowlinuxperia: and as far as I understand it, it's Fair Use.14:38
linuxperiahmmmm i have difficulties to understand this. gcloud without the software  provided by canonical makes no sense. nobody of all customers buy only the gcloud platform they want a end product14:40
linuxperiawhat you are saying is the restaurant is offering the empty bottle and reuqire to be paid for the glass bottle14:41
blackflowyou can't compare SaaS/PaaS with retail14:41
blackflowthe GPL license allows anyone to distribute it, and if oyu modify it, you're obliged to attach the source code as well.14:42
linuxperiathe coca cola drink however the reason why you decied to visit a restaurant hwoever is offered for free so only the usage of glass has to be paid. in a court this make no sense14:42
blackflowthat means I can sell Ubuntu linux, literally sell it, but I probably can't call it Ubuntu because that'd be trademark violation.14:42
blackflowI could call it MyLinux and say it's based on Ubuntu.14:42
linuxperiayeah but they call it ubuntu14:42
blackflowexcept they're not selling the images, they're selling PaaS14:42
blackflowthe preinstalled images is convenience, you can install whatever you want via private images14:43
blackflowlinuxperia: want a car analogy? Say you're selling cars. Say there's a company giving out car radios for free. So you sell your car with preinstalled car radio. It's a convenience, and you're not charging anything for the radio. the price is the same with or without the radio.14:44
linuxperiahmmmmm look the moment you use the name of a product which your bussiness at the end is based and without it can not work or brings a value anymore to the customer14:44
linuxperiayou are obligated to pay for it14:45
linuxperiagoogle use this registered canonical name14:45
blackflowlinuxperia: look, if that were the case then every distro under the sun would flourish from royalties form every hosting company out there. Because, what about RedHat? What about ArchLinux? SuSE? Gentoo? FreeBSD? ...14:45
linuxperiaand without it there product would be of no use for the customer14:45
blackflowlinuxperia: excpet you're not selling the product, you're selling the platform.14:45
blackflow*the product = server image14:45
linuxperiayeah but they need to go to court really14:45
blackflowthey won't because there's no grounds14:46
linuxperiai have expected that a big portion of my money goes to canonical as customer and that i support that way canonical14:46
blackflowI don't think so.14:47
linuxperiablackflow: it does not matter if you sell the platform or image in my point of view14:47
linuxperiawhat matters is what the end customer has in the end14:47
blackflowyeah but your point of view is wrong. The license itself does not demand it. and just including the preinstalled images with their full legal name falls under fair use14:47
linuxperiaif he ends up with a canonical ubuntu server then they are not paid for the platform but for the ubuntu server14:48
blackflowlinuxperia: http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy14:48
blackflowlook under 1. Summary14:49
blackflowit basically allows you to redistribute the unmodified Ubuntu, for free.14:49
blackflowI think the OVH thing happened because OVH modifies it.14:49
blackflowSame thing happened with Firefox and Debian, Debian was modifying it and Mozilla enforced the trademark, so Iceweasel was born14:49
linuxperiaif i were canonical i will for sure go to court and if they fear reputation loose then they should make a agreement with a third party that goes after the hosting companies. as a customer when i choose a ubuntu server then i expect that the money goes to canonical as at the end they lift the heavy weight14:49
blackflowso the license and the trademark law allow you to include / redistribute Ubuntu in your PaaS product, unmodified, with no monetary obligation.14:50
linuxperiayeah but the google images are modified too they include a lot of google stuff too14:51
blackflowlinuxperia: that'd be one great source of income and I'm sure if it made legal sense, Canonical would do it and then Ubuntu would perish.14:51
blackflowlinuxperia: don't confuse "installed software" with modified images.14:51
blackflowlinuxperia: bottom line, I don't know if google is paying any royalties to Canonical, all I think is "don't bet on it".14:52
linuxperiaookey looks like your more informed. maybe canoncial should look after some small distro that is used in hosting companys and use it as a proxy before the court14:52
linuxperiathat way they can fight before the court without to loose reputation14:52
blackflowthey'd lose reputation in a heartbeat as the news would break within seconds on every twitter and facebook :)14:53
blackflowit _is_ 2016 btw ;)14:53
linuxperiayeah this is probably the main reason they dont do it even me as a customer who pay money would like that this money goes to canonical14:54
linuxperiai would still do it. look for a distro developer that can not loose much and then let him start court battles14:55
linuxperiawhen somebody start saying its canonical deny it :-)14:55
linuxperiablackflow: thanks to your support however it looks like i will be maybe able to effort buy also a canonical server support package. last time i looked it costed about 400 USD per Month14:58
blackflowdunno. my current paying-for-Ubuntu efforts are limited to a $10 donation every 6 months when I download the new iso :)14:59
blackflowI also donate my time reporting bugs and helping out people on IRC ;)14:59
linuxperiaits on my buy list and hope to maked it soon with my business so i am able to afford it. ahh donating that is a great possibility too yes.15:00
linuxperiawell this could be a alternative for me too if i dont make it then :-)15:00
linuxperianeed to go. work awaiting me. thanks a lot for the help and the discussion. wish you all a great weekend.15:01
blackflowhave fun! ;)15:01
linuxperiayou too15:01
linuxperiablackflow: ahh btw a simple solution for canonical could be to block all hoster ips from the package repository that use ubuntu server images but refuses to pay royalities i would do it that if i were canonical !15:22
linuxperiaeasy clean solution15:22
OerHeksHow would we see who is using a fork and who is using plain ubuntu?15:23
linuxperiaOerHecks: Hosters that got identified to use Canoninical Ubuntu and reuqire Money for it from its Customers but reject to pay Royalities  to Canonical get its identifies IP adresses blocked. The moment they offer a commercial ubuntu based Solution they should be required to pay Royalities aka being whitelisted their IP Adresses15:26
linuxperiawhy should canonical waste bandwidth to comercial hosters that refuses to pay royalities15:27
OerHekslinuxperia, how do you tell those hosters have no license with Canonical?15:28
linuxperialet see how fast they start paying the money to canonical when its paying customer cant update or install packages anymore from canonical and its developers15:28
OerHeksit is not the iso, but the support is what you pay for AFAIK15:28
OerHeks* nor updates15:28
linuxperiaits waste of bandwidth as canonical has to pay for the traffic everytime a comerical user want update its ubuntu server packages15:29
blackflownot quite, there are (contributor) mirrors15:29
OerHeksIf i was a pro user, i would get my own mirror to avoid such costs..15:29
OerHeksnot mentioning time, avoiding downtime and such15:30
linuxperiahmmm okey mirrors could be problem but then its not canonicals problem as they dont waste money for the traffic and the hoster has to do modification then15:30
linuxperiajust block hoster ip adresses that refuses to pay royalities for the work canonical and its developers are doing. make it a little harder for them with such a easy solutions. no need to offer them access to updated security updates15:32
OerHeksThat would be a step back to the debian formula .. it is not the iso, nor the updates, it is the support that creates revenue15:33
OerHeksand leaving machines without important updates, well we have enough zombie servers on the net15:34
OerHeksugly responsability if you ask me15:34
linuxperiawhy is this canonical problem? i as a paying customer choose the official ubuntu and pay for it everybody else who does not want has to look for itslef15:35
linuxperiahow he keep his ubuntu from canonical going15:35
blackflowlinuxperia: do you know what CentOS essentially is? It's Red Hat Enterprise Linux without the names, logos, trademarks and proprietary software. If Canonical tried to block people form using Ubuntu on the grounds of trademark, you can bet a ton of community versions from Ubuntu SOURCES (which ubuntu us legally obliged to publish, like RHEL did) would crop up.15:36
OerHeksYes, and i am such fool that gives free support, as ubuntu member/volunteer ..15:36
linuxperiablackflow: yeah but then they are not ubuntu anymore and people would think twice if they want pay google money to a non name or the official ubuntu release;-)15:37
blackflowlinuxperia: and does that also mean we have to pay to the Linux Foundation for every distro used because they have "Linux" in their names?15:37
linuxperiaonly for access to the repo for commercial hosters15:38
linuxperiadont get whats the problem. there are commercial hosters that capitilize on the work of canonical that invested millions of dollars in its product15:39
blackflowgood luck enforcing that :)15:39
blackflowlinuxperia: you do realize that vast majority of "Ubuntu" source code is not written by Canonical at all?15:39
linuxperiathat refuses to pay royalities even paying customer expect that some of the money they pay goes to canonical15:39
linuxperiabut the inforastructure is run by cannonical.15:40
OerHeksroyalties.. you keep saying that..15:40
linuxperiayou said tiself google want money for its platform15:40
linuxperiaso canonical should require commercial hoster to pay royalities15:40
linuxperiafor the usage of its platform too15:40
blackflowthen Debian should require from Ubuntu payments for the use of Debian Testing from which Ubuntu is forked.15:40
blackflowLinux foundation too.15:40
linuxperiaif they refuse block the access for this commercial hosters15:41
blackflowapt-get install postgresql? oh, no you won't. pay up first for using PostgreSQL(tm) on that command line! :)15:41
OerHekslinuxperia, how do you tell those hosters have no license with Canonical?15:41
linuxperiaits ĵob by off canonical to idefnies such hosters. contact them by email or by phone as a interessted customers and ask if they have a liccesse agreement with canonical15:43
linuxperiaits simple15:43
linuxperiaif not bye15:43
linuxperiagood luck with no security updates offered by a crappy comercia hoster that refuses to pay royalities to ubuntu devs15:44
blackflow... or they would just strip all references to Ubuntu in their modified version, name it somethng else, and continue offering Ubuntu unmodified. no royalties needed.15:48
blackflowand they're alled, by Fair Use, to state their distro is "Based on Ubuntu but modifed for x and y". Just like OVH does based on CentOS15:49
linuxperiawell but then they are approaching a dangerous path as this modification arent ubuntu anymore and would abuse the trademark15:49
linuxperiaif they still insist to call it ubuntu15:49
blackflownot if they change the name15:49
linuxperiayeah but then i would not buy it anymore15:49
blackflowI don't think you understand the core of the issue here. Nobody is obliged to pay to Canonical for redistributing Ubuntu, unmodified. period.15:49
blackflowif you modify it, like OVH did, then you're forced to make a deal with Canonical and then Canonical can sue you for Trademark violation, if you don't comply.15:50
blackflowIs Ubuntu offered by default on Google compute modified?15:50
blackflowso if you modify it, stop calling it Ubuntu (and probably need to strip all the references to Ubuntu and Canonical as well) and you're done.15:52
linuxperiaexactly so blocking access to this comerical hosters redistributing unmodified ubuntu server images is best and easy solution to fors them pay royalities by blocked their ips to the repo platform. the moment they start modify it they are obligated to pay or rebrand/rename it which then customers will refuse to pay for as they want the original ;-)15:53
OerHeksyour customers get the wrong idea, you do not pay for the iso /images. just for support.15:53
OerHeksrunning around in circles ..15:53
blackflowlinuxperia: I'm pretty sure that would backfire against Canonical15:54
linuxperiablackflow: nooo dont think soo i would do it if i were canonical as everything else comes to a rape nearly. canonical would just defend its legal user base from commercial hosters that dont want pay their share for the platform usage even they recieve money from its customers for it  :-)15:56
blackflowthat's not how it works.15:57
blackflowbecause then Debian could ask Canonical to pay up for all the debs Ubuntu is using straight from Debian.15:57
blackflowand the avalanche would continue to all the makers of all the software in Ubuntu.15:57
blackflow(not developed by Canonical)15:57
linuxperiablackflow: so this approach works then as you see so we both agree you just think it could produce some side effects he he he15:58
OerHeksI think there are a few assumptions here, and license misunderstanding.15:58
blackflowit wouldn't work, that's my point. theory is one thing, practice another.15:58
linuxperiaOerHeks: its not about the licesses its about the usage of the platform blackflow insits that google recive money for offering a server platform instead server solution for ends customers. so in this case canonical can require commercial hosters to pay them for their platform too.15:59
blackflowI'm insisting only on stating that nobody is _obliged_ to pay for unmodified Ubuntu. And if you block anyone from accessing the repo, I am sure an argument can be made that you're violating GPL...16:00
blackflowand in fact, it's not payment for modified ubuntu, it's trademark violation if you redistribute modified ubuntu and call it ubuntu.16:01
OerHeksah, now we are getting to the point: google asks money for their server-park.. not the software. canonical does not offer serverspace, just tools and support.16:02
blackflowso if you're a company making money on offering Ubuntu, so what? that's how the entire FOSS world works.16:02
blackflowprecisely. when you pay for gcloud, you pay for the PaaS, not for software installed (unless it's Google's or something like that)16:02
OerHeksopenstack/juju/landscape ..16:02
blackflowyou can remove and install YourOwnOS, and the price would not change16:02
linuxperiaOerHeks: yeah support delivered by its distro platform payed and run by canonical for non commercial usage.16:03
OerHeksCanonical does not pay me :-(16:03
linuxperiacanonical is not obligated to offer access to comercial hosters to its distro platform16:04
OerHeksi come cheap, as i have to accept any job-offer :-D16:04
blackflowlinuxperia: actually, it IS obliged, per GPL16:04
blackflowat least, it IS obliged to give unrestricted access to the source16:04
blackflowso the "evil commercial hoster" can choose to download the source debs and build their own ubuntu.16:04
OerHeksoops, , please don't read this sabdfl16:05
blackflowOerHeks: really... that's like those emails with mile long disclaimers AT THE END saying that if you're not the intended recipient you should not read blah blah blah.... OMRGREALY! BUT I HAD TO READ THROUGH TO REACH THE DISCLAIMER! :)16:06
linuxperiablackflow: well this will come again to a modificaiton of the original ubuntu product if he decide so16:06
blackflowlinuxperia: nope. taking sources and rebuilding from sources is not modifying it.16:06
blackflowyou seem to suggest Canonical forcibly extort money from commercial users of Ubuntu who don't pay some fictive license that doesn't exist.16:07
linuxperiahe will need to change the source list i asume to be able install debs16:07
blackfloweven if Canonical said, Okay, from now on, Commercial use of these binaries is payable, the GPL states Oh hell no, give out the sources! any anyone can use the source instead of binaries... I mean c'mon, its not like that never happened:   CENTOS16:07
linuxperiagive them the source okey no problem16:08
linuxperiathey can have a cd rom16:08
blackflowlinuxperia: what you're suggesting is just like what Red Hat does. You can't access RHEL binaries without subscription but you CAN and CentOS did, download the sources and rebuild RHEL sans trademarks.16:08
OerHeksubuntu does some change, here and there, but that is al written down, so reversing is an easy job, you just end up with debian-unstable16:08
blackflowOerHeks: plus all the canonical specific, GPL'd stuff.16:08
linuxperiaOerHecks: good point so thus ones who dont want to see some of the money they pay go to canonical will have to change to debian then. so what?16:09
blackflowlinuxperia: so if Canonical did that, what do you think prevents a company the size of Google to download the sources and rebuild Ubuntu?16:09
linuxperianothing but then its has nothing to do with ubuntu.16:09
linuxperiaits not ubuntu16:10
blackflowof course it is :)16:10
linuxperianooo they will have to change it16:10
blackflowyou can even call it Ubuntu, per current license.16:10
linuxperialook i do really think this is the right way for canonical. i have nothing more to say.16:11
OerHeksthe name ubuntu is free. not the logo.16:11
linuxperiathanks a lot for all the discussion.16:11
OerHeksyw, i likes this conversation.16:11
blackflowlinuxperia: I'd tell you what I'd do first thing, if that happened. I'd stop using Ubuntu and switch to Debian tesing.16:12
linuxperiawhy dont make any sense. you pay the money either way to the hoster. you want switch to debian if your hoster instead to keep all the money decide to give a part of it to canonical and its developer you will then switch to debian? does not make sense for me. have to go work waits. i liked the discussion too :-) have all great weekend16:15
blackflowlinuxperia: I mean the part if Canonical blocked Commercial use of Ubuntu wihtout paying. my company uses Ubuntu, we contribute back i other ways, plus some donations.16:16
blackflowso if Canonical went the greedy Oracle way, I'd stop supporting it. simple.16:16
blackflowbecause 90% of hte software we use is not Canonical's. Python, PostgreSQL, uWSGI, PHP, Perl, .....16:17
OerHeksA company that uses open source, does give money to projects, just because it is tax deductable.16:17
OerHeksand buys coffee as it is the opensource oil nr 1 here16:18
blackflowsure. but this whole discussion came out of the idea that paying for Google compute PaaS results with any of that money going to Canonical because you can use preinstalled Ubuntu images.16:20
OerHeks'preinstalled' so tweaked to their platform16:21
blackflowI don't know if it does, all I'm sayng Google is not obliged to, and I wouldn't count on them paying anything in support to Canonical. Google is a major Open Source contributor themselves and they do sponsor non-profits.16:21
blackflowI remember a few years ago a few hundred grand was donated to FreeBSD, and I'm sure there's much more like that. Not counting all the secondary things coming out of Google into FOSS in form of code.16:22
blackflowso do they pay to Canonical specifically? I don't know, I doubt they do unless forced by the trademark.16:22
blackflowbut then, why should they? Huge part of Ubuntu is not Canonical's product at all. In that respect Canonical is "just" repackaging other people's code.16:23
blackflowI am of course not counting all the Canonical specific products like juju etc...16:24
OerHeksmaybe 15% is own cooking?16:26
blackflowPossibly, dunno.16:28
blackflowgtg now, thanks for the lovely discussion! ;)16:30
OerHekshave fun blackflow16:35
brushdemon( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)16:57
Bashing-omGonna go, attack the lawn follage, see if i can cut it down to size . Back in a bit or so .22:48

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!