> Which is stupid, because trademark is a legal term, defined by the laws of the land. Canonical can't change the way a country interprets 'trademark'. No, he

> Which is stupid, because trademark is a legal term, defined by the laws of the land. Canonical can't change the way a country interprets 'trademark'. No, he just wanted them to clarify, what specifically are the things which should be removed from Ubuntu distribution, so it can be then declared as completely stripped from Ubuntu trademark. (other Linux distributions mentioning in the article do provide such information).