You can read the policy that way. You can also read the policy as imposing additional copyright related restrictions on the code. Most free software licenses pe

You can read the policy that way. You can also read the policy as imposing additional copyright related restrictions on the code. Most free software licenses permit Canonical to add additional restrictions, so this is something they can do. Your interpretation is the obvious one, but Canonical have repeatedly refused to confirm that it's the correct one. This is the heart of the argument between the FSF and Canonical over whether the policy was GPL compatible or not. If it was merely a restatement of trademark law, it would have been. If it was an additional copyright-based restriction, it wouldn't. As https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms shows, Canonical chose to add a "trump clause" rather than clarifying their stance.