4 ms·

Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believi

by onli 10y ago

Read https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual... before believing that alarmist stance: Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu. If you need us to approve, certify or provide modified versions for redistribution you will require a licence agreement from Canonical, for which you may be required to pay. For further information, please contact us (as set out below).

detaro 10y ago
Which pretty much reads like the "alarmist stance" could be right. "associate it with the Trademarks" seems pretty open to interpretation without a clear statement from Canonical. If it were so clear-cut they would have no reason not to provide such a statement.
jwfxpr 10y ago
The author does not claim it isn't open source, the author claims it doesn't comply with the four freedoms. > and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. I believe the author specifically calls out this document themselves, and emphasises the phrase above, as being the problematic portion. And while canonical does also say "For further information, please contact us (as set out below)", they have not clarified this concern despite being contacted and asked.
- nippples 10y ago
  Could this possibly refer to situations where the original binaries contain trademarked content?
  - ckastner 10y ago
    I believe this is the only rational explanation. The other, non-trademark-containing software, is distributed under a FOSS license (both the source and the binary derivative), and I don't see how anyone could be legally forced to rebuild the binary. The copyright situation is clear, the legal leg this is standing on seems to be the trademark situation.
  - mjg59 10y ago
    Mark Shuttleworth has told me that they assert copyright over all their binaries and that this restriction is intended to apply regardless of trademarks.
  - mamon 10y ago
    It could, but there's probably another explanation: if you can't use original binaries then you can't point to Ubuntu package repositories in your own distro. Maintaining those repositories is a part of Canonical's competitive advantage, if anyone could use it then any distribution could easily get at least as good as Ubuntu, which would ruin the Canonical's business.
- taneq 10y ago
  But if that's the whole argument then it's a gimme from the start, since Ubuntu includes non-free driver blobs and the like. They prioritise utility over "free software purity".
leni536 10y ago
IANAL Isn't this mainly void? Many software that comes with Ubuntu is: - Not from Canonical. - Comes with an FOSS license that doesn't restrict redistribution of the compiled work. - The same license forbids additional restrictions. So in this sense I can redistribute any compiled "Ubuntu" package, at most I would need to strip trademarks.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  Came here to say this. Besides, Ubuntu has never been close to being a fully Free (Libre) distribution; like most other Linux based distros, it has a mix of Free software and closed source software and firmware. I don't disagree with Mr. Garrett's opinion that Canonical is in the wrong here, rather I'd say he's practically giving them a pass. Not only does Canonical try to impose policies and demands that violate the licenses of the software they used to build their OS, they try to claim ownership of said software (by slapping their trademark on the finished bundle) and bully any entity that wishes to exercise the rights those licenses afford them.
  - onli 10y ago
    Where did they ever do that? Where did they ever bully an entity that made a derivative without using the term Ubuntu, where did they wrongly not give permission, where did they state ownership wrongly to sabotage another project? The only times I saw something in that direction was with modified Ubuntu images being called Ubuntu, where their motivation is clear: protecting their image and their users. If that is their only goal, then I understand why they want to keep this tool to achieve it. I agree that the terms should be formulated clearer, and always having to ask canonical for a derivative is clearly them claiming rights they do not have. I'm not even sure they do that. If they did, would that mean they are a bully doing bad things? No.
    - tajen 10y ago
      Bully: Canonical's stance also means that startups who create a business on an Ubuntu derivative (e.g. Elementary.io) may not be able to raise money, or they'll have to raise money at a discount, because of the huge risk of litigation and the risk of the results completely voiding their business. That Canonical hasn't done it yet doesn't mean they're not sabotaging an sector.
taneq 10y ago
This was my conclusion also. TFA says: > It's legitimate for Canonical to insist that you not pass it off as their work when doing so, but their IP policy continues to insist that you remove all references to Canonical's trademarks even if their use would not infringe trademark law. Since we're being pedantic about wordings, it doesn't say "remove all references to Canonical's trademarks", it says "remove and replace the Trademarks and [...] create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source license applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu." I think it's explicit here that where this request to remove their trademarks conflicts with any existing licensing, that licensing will take precedence. When read in conjunction with https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing which stipulates that any component in the main Ubuntu component "must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under the same licence" it seems pretty clear that any software in the main component, at least, is protected and they're only doing what they're legally required to do to protect their trademarks.

by onli 10y ago

detaro 10y ago

Which pretty much reads like the "alarmist stance" could be right. "associate it with the Trademarks" seems pretty open to interpretation without a clear statement from Canonical. If it were so clear-cut they would have no reason not to provide such a statement.

jwfxpr 10y ago

The author does not claim it isn't open source, the author claims it doesn't comply with the four freedoms. > and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. I believe the author specifically calls out this document themselves, and emphasises the phrase above, as being the problematic portion. And while canonical does also say "For further information, please contact us (as set out below)", they have not clarified this concern despite being contacted and asked.

nippples 10y ago
Could this possibly refer to situations where the original binaries contain trademarked content?
- ckastner 10y ago
  I believe this is the only rational explanation. The other, non-trademark-containing software, is distributed under a FOSS license (both the source and the binary derivative), and I don't see how anyone could be legally forced to rebuild the binary. The copyright situation is clear, the legal leg this is standing on seems to be the trademark situation.
- mjg59 10y ago
  Mark Shuttleworth has told me that they assert copyright over all their binaries and that this restriction is intended to apply regardless of trademarks.
- mamon 10y ago
  It could, but there's probably another explanation: if you can't use original binaries then you can't point to Ubuntu package repositories in your own distro. Maintaining those repositories is a part of Canonical's competitive advantage, if anyone could use it then any distribution could easily get at least as good as Ubuntu, which would ruin the Canonical's business.
taneq 10y ago
But if that's the whole argument then it's a gimme from the start, since Ubuntu includes non-free driver blobs and the like. They prioritise utility over "free software purity".

leni536 10y ago

IANAL Isn't this mainly void? Many software that comes with Ubuntu is: - Not from Canonical. - Comes with an FOSS license that doesn't restrict redistribution of the compiled work. - The same license forbids additional restrictions. So in this sense I can redistribute any compiled "Ubuntu" package, at most I would need to strip trademarks.

morganvachon 10y ago
Came here to say this. Besides, Ubuntu has never been close to being a fully Free (Libre) distribution; like most other Linux based distros, it has a mix of Free software and closed source software and firmware. I don't disagree with Mr. Garrett's opinion that Canonical is in the wrong here, rather I'd say he's practically giving them a pass. Not only does Canonical try to impose policies and demands that violate the licenses of the software they used to build their OS, they try to claim ownership of said software (by slapping their trademark on the finished bundle) and bully any entity that wishes to exercise the rights those licenses afford them.
- onli 10y ago
  Where did they ever do that? Where did they ever bully an entity that made a derivative without using the term Ubuntu, where did they wrongly not give permission, where did they state ownership wrongly to sabotage another project? The only times I saw something in that direction was with modified Ubuntu images being called Ubuntu, where their motivation is clear: protecting their image and their users. If that is their only goal, then I understand why they want to keep this tool to achieve it. I agree that the terms should be formulated clearer, and always having to ask canonical for a derivative is clearly them claiming rights they do not have. I'm not even sure they do that. If they did, would that mean they are a bully doing bad things? No.
  - tajen 10y ago
    Bully: Canonical's stance also means that startups who create a business on an Ubuntu derivative (e.g. Elementary.io) may not be able to raise money, or they'll have to raise money at a discount, because of the huge risk of litigation and the risk of the results completely voiding their business. That Canonical hasn't done it yet doesn't mean they're not sabotaging an sector.

taneq 10y ago

This was my conclusion also. TFA says: > It's legitimate for Canonical to insist that you not pass it off as their work when doing so, but their IP policy continues to insist that you remove all references to Canonical's trademarks even if their use would not infringe trademark law. Since we're being pedantic about wordings, it doesn't say "remove all references to Canonical's trademarks", it says "remove and replace the Trademarks and [...] create your own binaries. This does not affect your rights under any open source license applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu." I think it's explicit here that where this request to remove their trademarks conflicts with any existing licensing, that licensing will take precedence. When read in conjunction with https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing which stipulates that any component in the main Ubuntu component "must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under the same licence" it seems pretty clear that any software in the main component, at least, is protected and they're only doing what they're legally required to do to protect their trademarks.