[sspiff]

As most hosts do. I've noticed the following from personal experience, but I'm pretty sure there are more out there:

- OVH modifies the kernel (though users can opt for stock kernel, losing integration into OVH's monitoring infrastructure).

- Scaleway modifies the runtime environment extensively, even on their bare metal servers, to provide integration / deep hooks into their APIs. They seem to be modifying the boot sequence, init system and replace the kernel.

I'm not sure what Canonical's goal is - protecting their brand from uncertified, unknown quality third party extensions? Or simply monetizing?

Either way, they should be careful not to be seen as a bully by the public for this kind of thing - they already have a pretty iffy reputation in the open source world, with their Unity desktop, Mir, upstart, Amazon integration, ... (I realize that most of these have been fixed or dropped - but they're an indication of intent).

[tgayton]

They've clarified, in their intellectual property policy[1] that this is exactly as you speculate, for quality control in relation to use of their trademarks.

Canonical doesn't want someone to release a derivative which is unstable due to modification and call it "Ubuntu 16.04 LTS", therefore potentially resulting in blame being placed on them.

Regardless of personal opinion, it's an interesting situation considering the differing opinions on the separation between brand IP and source code IP.

[1] http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-...

[keithpeter]

Perhaps OVH should simply call it Blue Fin Linux or something? Or Globe Linux?

Or are we talking recompilation of all the packages to remove the phrase 'ubuntu'? The latter would be much more complex. You are getting into CentOS territory with their 'North American Upstream Vendor' then.

[pietroalbini]

Or maybe they should stop shipping kernels without months of security patches, and advertize their broken images as "Ubuntu".

[keithpeter]

Suppose OVH paid the $1 per month per VPS and Canonical therefore allowed the use of the Ubuntu trade mark. Would you be fine with that?

My point is that perhaps trade mark/copyright law isn't the best way to encourage vendors to update their products.

[pietroalbini]

We don't even know what this 1€/instance is paid for: the only source we have is a tweet from the OVH founder. Maybe there was a discussion before, or maybe not, we're just speculating here.

My guess is the price is for certifying the images, which also means guaranteeing the kernel has all the security patches in it. That means OVH would be able to customize the kernel to integrate it in their control panel, and the customers would get a secure and not broken Ubuntu image.

The other option is to ship the stock image (and maybe put the integration in a .deb, as another person suggested here), and don't pay anything because you would be OK under the trademark policy.

[detaro]

What's a better way for Ubuntu to do that? Given the open-source nature of the product, the trademark is the one avenue they have, and it's reputation quite important to differentiate themselves.