> 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 hol

> 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".