3 ms·

I fail to see the problem- either don't change the image in a meaningful way or recompile without the name ubuntu and call it something else. Seems ok to me. A

I fail to see the problem- either don't change the image in a meaningful way or recompile without the name ubuntu and call it something else. Seems ok to me. Also, using the Ubuntu name for a product not made by canonical without permission is against trademark law, so the argument made seems moot. A few restrictions does not automatically make something "not free". In fact copyleft "free software" has tons of restrictions.

delonia 10y ago
That post was written by Matthew Garrett, and he has written many similar posts against Ubuntu over the years. His previous rant was about the snaps in Ubuntu. That they are not fully secure (contained) because Linux distributions are still based X11. It's a one-sided hate directed specifically against Ubuntu. If only someone revealed to him Oracle's "Unbreakable" Linux and http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulletinapr2016-2952096.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulle...
ecnahc515 10y ago
That isn't enough. Mark Shuttleworth had said you cannot simply remove all trademarks, that may not be sufficient. they don't document what needs removing, and thus it's fairly difficult to actually "just" removing trademarks.