Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Cloud Ubuntu Businesses Open Source Operating Systems

Canonical Sues Cloud Provider Over 'Unofficial' Ubuntu Images (ostatic.com) 47

An anonymous reader quotes OStatic's update on Canonical's lawsuit against a cloud provider: Canonical posted Thursday that they've been in a dispute with "a European cloud provider" over the use of their own homespun version of Ubuntu on their cloud servers. Their implementation disables even the most basic of security features and Canonical is worried something bad could happen and it'd reflect badly back on them... They said they've spent months trying to get the unnamed provider to use the standard Ubuntu as delivered to other commercial operations to no avail. Canonical feels they have no choice but to "take legal steps to remove these images." They're sure Red Hat and Microsoft wouldn't be treated like this.
Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, wrote in his blog post that Ubuntu is "the leading cloud OS, running most workloads in public clouds today," whereas these homegrown images "are likely to behave unpredictably on update in weirdly creative and mysterious ways... We hear about these issues all the time, because users assume there is a problem with Ubuntu on that cloud; users expect that 'all things that claim to be Ubuntu are genuine', and they have a right to expect that...

"To count some of the ways we have seen home-grown images create operational and security nightmares for users: clouds have baked private keys into their public images, so that any user could SSH into any machine; clouds have made changes that then blocked security updates for over a week... When things like this happen, users are left feeling let down. As the company behind Ubuntu, it falls to Canonical to take action."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canonical Sues Cloud Provider Over 'Unofficial' Ubuntu Images

Comments Filter:
  • Dupe (Score:4, Informative)

    by buchner.johannes ( 1139593 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @06:42PM (#53421867) Homepage Journal
    • The original story was about a "hard stand"... This is about suing them. Totally different thing...

      When you take a "hard stand", you wear the condom yourself - suing involves hiring others to wear the condoms.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Can we finally have the name of this "European cloud provider"?

    • by grub ( 11606 )

      Can we finally have the name of this "European cloud provider"?

      We'll get the name on the next dupe of the story. Check back Tuesday.
  • by Provocateur ( 133110 ) <shediedNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday December 04, 2016 @07:09PM (#53421955) Homepage

    Vivid Vervet
    Wily Werewolf
    Xenial Xerus
    Yakkety Yak
    Zesty Zapus

    And from the summary, "Unofficial Ubuntu"

  • by r1348 ( 2567295 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @09:21PM (#53422339)

    I've been very critical of Canonical in the recent years (the whole Unity+Mir fiasco) but this time I think they're right. You cannot fundamentally modify their product and still call it Ubuntu. If they took Ubuntu, disabled AppArmor, removed all the trademarks and marketed it as TotallyUnsafe linux whatever, that would have been acceptable, but I can see why Ubuntu feels damaged by this "European cloud provider" behavior.

    • yep you can change it however you like but when it comes to there trademarks they can say you cant use them due to your mods. heck nearly everyone who does Ubuntu remixes knows this and removes the trademarks.
    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      They absolutely do have a point. The provider is passing off their hacked up linux distro as Ubuntu, playing off of the brand. That's exactly what trademark law is intended to prevent.

  • The informations are scarce: Cnnonical sues who, in what court of what country?
  • Is the next step the certification of cloud providers by Canonical?

    They may be somewhat shy of naming vendors who are bastardising their product and compromising the security, updatability and maintainability of their pre-packaged images, but maybe another approach is for Canonical (and other Linux vendors) to come up with a certification model? That way if you play nice you get to use the logo, and if you lie you can be sued.

    That way customers can quickly tell which vendors are more reputable than other

  • OVH founder on June 19 2016 "@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."

    https://www.reddit.com/r/linux... [reddit.com]

  • by multia ( 4717201 )
    unnamed provider... We all know who it is https://twitter.com/olesovhcom... [twitter.com]
  • You can select their modified Ubuntu distro or the standard Ubuntu one when selecting the OS at install.

    • You can choose the OVH or distribution *kernel* when installing, but the OS itself will have been modified, regardless. And that's only for some machines, their Xeon D machines have the distribution kernel option disabled, for example.

  • Wait ... so they're just starting up Google Latitude again and giving it a new name?

Information is the inverse of entropy.