3 ms·

The problem is that Canonical is (intentionally?) vague about what you need to do with their software to redistribute it. They have not answered requests for cl

by jordigh 11y ago

The problem is that Canonical is (intentionally?) vague about what you need to do with their software to redistribute it. They have not answered requests for clarification. What do they consider trademarks, what do you need to remove? This kind of (intentional?) legal ambiguity ends up having a chilling effect.

cabalamat 11y ago
> The problem is that Canonical is (intentionally?) vague about what you need to do with their software to redistribute it. What does trademark law say on the issue? I assume there are some differences between using a trademark and merely mentioning it, because if not then this post would be illegal due to having the words "Canonical" and "Ubuntu" in it.
Mikeb85 11y ago
There is no legal ambiguity. The license is a legal document. You comply with the terms of the license and trademark law. > What do they consider trademarks, what do you need to remove? They don't define trademarks, because it's a legal term that depends on the laws in your country, and not up to them to define. Canonical's Q&A is merely clarification. At the end of the day, you're subject to whatever licenses you implicitly agree to, as interpreted by the laws in your jurisdiction (and maybe some international laws that your country recognizes).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jordigh 11y ago
  > They don't define trademarks, because it's a legal term that depends on the laws in your country, and not up to them to define. It is up to the trademark holder to decide what they consider their trademark to be. That's why when defending a trademark you have to say "so-and-so is a registered trademark of so-and-so", and that's why when people defend trademarks they use a trademark symbol. People defending their trademark also have to decide what is or is not an acceptable use of their trademark. Furthermore, trademarks that are not defended are lost. Copyright licenses also are completely irrelevant as regards to trademarks. These are different sets of laws. What is in effect here is what Canonical confusingly calls its "intellectual property policy", which is in effect only about trademarks, not any other law that people confusingly call "intellectual property".

by jordigh 11y ago

cabalamat 11y ago

> The problem is that Canonical is (intentionally?) vague about what you need to do with their software to redistribute it. What does trademark law say on the issue? I assume there are some differences between using a trademark and merely mentioning it, because if not then this post would be illegal due to having the words "Canonical" and "Ubuntu" in it.

Mikeb85 11y ago

There is no legal ambiguity. The license is a legal document. You comply with the terms of the license and trademark law. > What do they consider trademarks, what do you need to remove? They don't define trademarks, because it's a legal term that depends on the laws in your country, and not up to them to define. Canonical's Q&A is merely clarification. At the end of the day, you're subject to whatever licenses you implicitly agree to, as interpreted by the laws in your jurisdiction (and maybe some international laws that your country recognizes).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jordigh 11y ago
> They don't define trademarks, because it's a legal term that depends on the laws in your country, and not up to them to define. It is up to the trademark holder to decide what they consider their trademark to be. That's why when defending a trademark you have to say "so-and-so is a registered trademark of so-and-so", and that's why when people defend trademarks they use a trademark symbol. People defending their trademark also have to decide what is or is not an acceptable use of their trademark. Furthermore, trademarks that are not defended are lost. Copyright licenses also are completely irrelevant as regards to trademarks. These are different sets of laws. What is in effect here is what Canonical confusingly calls its "intellectual property policy", which is in effect only about trademarks, not any other law that people confusingly call "intellectual property".