> 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

> 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.