Ubuntu’s current LTS version (24.04) contains ffmpeg version 7:6.1.1-3ubuntu5 which has this buffer overflow vulnerability:

https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10952

https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2024-32230

On my only Ubuntu computer, my update widget says that I need to upgrade to ffmpeg version 7:6.1.1-3ubuntu5+esm2 but can only only do so with Ubuntu Pro. I’m not eligible for Ubuntu Pro.

Ubuntu claims that 24.04 is currently fully supported, and should have complete security updates. However, they seem to have paywalled this security update.

What should I do?

  • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
    99·
    2 days ago

    However, Ubuntu started a service called Ubuntu Pro / ESM that provides updates for packages in universe.

    Since it’s all free software, what gives Ubuntu the privilege to restrict these updates behind paywalls and signups?

    Pro is also free for personal use on up to 5 machines, so there’s no reason not to enable it.

    Fuck that bullshit. We shouldn’t be encouraging or enabling this behavior at all.

    • Abnorc@lemm.ee
      2·
      1 day ago

      Those who are against it probably would just move away from Ubuntu. For those who aren’t, I don’t see why they shouldn’t register for Ubuntu Pro. It’s not in the spirit of the free software ecosystem, but not everyone needs to have the same level of commitment to free software.

      IMO, hearing about Ubuntu Pro reinforces my decision to stick to Ubuntu derivatives like Mint, and it’s making me consider trying options like LMDE or straight up Debian.

    • Noa Himesaka@lemmy.funami.tech
      18·
      2 days ago

      GPL does not restrict you from selling the software, though you can’t stop getting distributed by someone who bought it. Even RMS himself sold Emacs back in the day.

      EDIT: I’m not saying it’s justified in moral sense, I think it sucks ass. But it’s not against the licence.

      • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
        24·
        2 days ago

        GPL does not restrict you from selling the software

        Oh god, we know.

        Practically speaking though, if anyone can redistribute it for free then it’s available for free.

        • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          18 hours ago

          You don’t seem to understand the difference between free as in freedom and free as in beer that is literally the cornerstone of the free software community.

    • Leaflet@lemmy.worldEnglish
      101·
      2 days ago

      Canonical is making the security patches.

      Also, you don’t have to release your source code changes to the public. You only have to release your changes to those who have access to the product.

      That being said, Canonical probably does release the source code changes for their security fixes, I just don’t know where.