Ubuntu is not free.

>>58287969
Use another distro? They're all pretty much the same in the end

>>58288038
So if they're all the same, they'll all stop being free in the end.

>>58288211
Good one, Rusty. You're a real thinker

>>58287969
Which software freedom do you think is harmed here?

>>58287969
so you're telling me I can't distribute White Power Ubuntu with Disunity DE without getting it approved by Canonical? That I would have to recompile their source code and create my own binaries?

Good thing I don't know how to do that

>>58288258
Close, but no cigar.

>>58288296
Paying Canonical for the rights to redistribute. Canonical requiring a fee for redistribution is inheritly different from companies that sell physical media and only charge for the media+shipping+handling. This will also, like I mentioned in the original post, affect anyone running a cloud virtualization setup since they are in effect both modifying and redistributing Ubuntu without either paying for it or have had the distribution vetted by Canonical.

>>58288315
Just because you can't, doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to - it's a central tennant in opensouce that it's free, you only pay if you have to have it on physical media.

>>58287969
Ubuntu doesn't cost anything, retard. It is free.

>>58288462
That's only if you want to use their trademarks.
This is trademark shit, if doesn't fall under free vs. non-free software.

The only thing that falls under free software is that they want you to recompile it for whatever weird reason.
This however doesn't prevent you from redistributing it, so no software-freedom got harmed.

>>58288497
Except when it's not, which Canonical has yet to define, but has as an option for them to make plenty of money.

Enjoy your non-free software.

>>58288530
Yes, meaning you have to strip all instances of Ubuntu from where its used - but your customers will want Ubuntu, yet you can't give them that. You can give them something that in effect is Ubuntu, but they won't know it because you can't tell them using the name Ubuntu. It's a nice little catch-22.

>>58287969
So what? They're trying to protect their trademark, nothing wrong with this

>>58288591
When your customers want some trademark you're out of luck.
This is again not related to non-free software

>>58287969
Don't like it don't use it. Compile your own distribution.

>>58288619
It still means the software becomes non-free, compared to other linux distributions or the BSDs.

>>58288635
And despite this, customers provably want Ubuntu - it's at the heart of the issue.

>>58288660
This is not <previous year minus 20>, I shouldn't have to compile my own damn OS just to use it. If I have to, FOSS has failed for sure.

>>58288789
Not sure if you're baiting or just retarded

I'll just use a different fucking distro. Is there really anyone out there that actually fucking cares?

>>58287969
No worries, Fedora exists

>>58287969
Are you even vegan tho?

>>58287969
they have said so many times: if you want to use their name, ask for their permission. otherwise, just don't use their trademarks.

that doesn't mean it's not free...

>>58287969
what is wrong with a professional software company wanting to select who is using their name and with whom they want to associate themselves with?

>>58288635
>This is again not related to non-free software

>>58288789
>And despite this, customers provably want Ubuntu - it's at the heart of the issue.
you can ask ubuntu to give the source code of the GPL'd programs they distribute, and they will give it to you. in fact, you can get it easily, by running
apt-get source some_gpld_program

you are mixing unrelated topics here m8

>>58288530
>recompile it for some weird reason
Wouldn't that be just to ensure you're not doing a terrible job cosmetically removing their IP from the binaries?
They just want to make you remove the IP from the source code

>>58289349
>IP
This isn't about IP to begin with, it's trademarks.
You also don't remove shit from binaries.

>>58287969
canonical and ubuntu violated the principles of free software numerous times as well as violated the GPL license.

It's not the case here however.
Trademark law, is not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying.

I think you meant "tenet"

File: Wiener-loop1.jpg (245KB, 810x1080px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 810x1080px

>>58289255
Absolutely nothing, and strong trademarks are one of the foundations of a free market. OP is a faggot.

>>58287969
>How do you feel about Ubuntu not being free?
I don't give a single fuck, to be quite honest.

As long as it's free to use and I can compile my own kernel, it's all fine and dandy and I don't care about Canonical's trademark issues.

>>58288789
Ask someone on your usergroup to install a GNU/Linux OS on your computer then.

>>58287969
Like installing Gentoo.

>>58288497
Free (Free beer) != Free (Freedom)