3 ms·
Could this possibly refer to situations where the original binaries contain trademarked content?
by nippples 10y ago
Could this possibly refer to situations where the original binaries contain trademarked content?
- ckastner 10y agoI 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 agoMark 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 agoIt 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.