5 ms·

So Canonical started abusing trademark law to silence critics, by claiming they could only use the name Ubuntu with permission and in specific contexts. Debian,

by tedivm 13y ago

So Canonical started abusing trademark law to silence critics, by claiming they could only use the name Ubuntu with permission and in specific contexts. Debian, being the distro of freedom, is preemptively removing the trademarked name in order to make it impossible for Canonical to do the same to them. While it is extremely unlikely that Canonical ever would, the point stands that they've done this at least once to others. By taking this action Debian is protecting their users from what they perceive as an IP threat. While it may seem a little silly, I am very glad they're doing this if only because it's drawing attention to how far Canonical has gone with some of their whacky and controlling decisions. Context, for those who want it- http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canonical-abused-trademark-law-to-target-a-site-critical-of-ubuntu-privacy/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...

a3n 13y ago
I guess it's getting time to move upstream. Which is fine, I've never given a dime to Canonical, they can do what they want. But it's too bad, they were one of the best things to happen to Linux.
joeyh 13y ago
Just to be clear, Debian didn't do this, I did. And only, so far in one package, which can be used to mirror Debian or various of its derivatives.
- abus 13y ago
  Isn't 'Canonical' a trademark? Couldn't you just refer to it as DerivativeOS4 and then have a central reference table?
  - Zikes 13y ago
    That reference table would have to contain Canonical or Ubuntu, though.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      So store the reference table on a server in a friendlier jurisdiction ;-).
    - abus 13y ago
      It keeps the source cleaner though and it wouldn't have to. DerivativeOS4 - Debian-based operating system released in 2004 by UK Company No. 06870835.
    - fluidcruft 13y ago
      Maybe just a tinyurl link to their website.
  - PeterWhittaker 13y ago
    Now there's an interesting question. IANAL, but here's what I understand the law to be, from years doing small business and startup stuff. It would be really nice if a lawyer or two could read through and comment.... Here's how I understand Canadian trademark law. There will be commonalities and important differences with other jurisdictions. In Canada, one cannot trade mark an existing dictionary word. One can trademark a representation of a word. Canonical being a dictionary word, it cannot be trademarked in Canada - but particular combinations of colour, font, background, images could be trademarked. Ubuntu is also a dictionary word - just not in an English or French dictionary, the ones best known to CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office) and its associated bits of the government. So theoretically, one cannot trademark Ubuntu, the word. There are Canadian trademarks for representations of the word, but they have nothing to do with computers and Canonical. Having said that, "novel" combinations of ordinary dictionary words can be trademarked. I never bothered to registered "EdgeKeep" and "Securing the Edge", but I marked them as trademarks - (TM) instead of (R) - everywhere I used them. Had there ever been a dispute, precedent would have been on my side, but I could have lost to deep pockets. For example, Office cannot be trademarked as just a word, in most jurisdictions most of the time, but Microsoft Office can be. My understanding is that some jurisdictions limit the dictionary word restriction to specific languages, but whether this is de jure or de facto (by law or by convention), I do not know. So this gets complicated really quickly, because ubuntu and canonical are just words, Ubuntu and Canonical refer to specific products and companies, the U&C terms may be trademarkable in some jurisdictions but not all, and, in any case... ...if one needs to refer to Canonical the company, then one may, despite that word being potentially trademarked in one or more jurisdictions. Whether one may make as liberal reference to the products of that company is another question. But IANAL, and even if I was, it might not matter until a judge spoke on this particular question, or a relevantly similar one. Fun, eh? PS I really, really like the idea of using "RestrictedDerivativeBy<insertAdjectiveHere>Company" instead of Ubuntu or Canonical, because it makes the point so much better in a sarcastic and humourous way. It makes all of the above moot, but when did mootness ever stop a good debate? :->
ilbe 13y ago
Thanks for the context. I used to use Ubuntu and found this feature to be nonsense. Who would come up with this idea? Let's make money by sending peoples searches to Amazon whenever they search for a file on their PC. Of course when I can't find my file, I'd love and expect the convenience to... get it on Amazon?!

by tedivm 13y ago

a3n 13y ago

I guess it's getting time to move upstream. Which is fine, I've never given a dime to Canonical, they can do what they want. But it's too bad, they were one of the best things to happen to Linux.

joeyh 13y ago

Just to be clear, Debian didn't do this, I did. And only, so far in one package, which can be used to mirror Debian or various of its derivatives.

abus 13y ago
Isn't 'Canonical' a trademark? Couldn't you just refer to it as DerivativeOS4 and then have a central reference table?
- Zikes 13y ago
  That reference table would have to contain Canonical or Ubuntu, though.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    So store the reference table on a server in a friendlier jurisdiction ;-).
  - abus 13y ago
    It keeps the source cleaner though and it wouldn't have to. DerivativeOS4 - Debian-based operating system released in 2004 by UK Company No. 06870835.
  - fluidcruft 13y ago
    Maybe just a tinyurl link to their website.
- PeterWhittaker 13y ago
  Now there's an interesting question. IANAL, but here's what I understand the law to be, from years doing small business and startup stuff. It would be really nice if a lawyer or two could read through and comment.... Here's how I understand Canadian trademark law. There will be commonalities and important differences with other jurisdictions. In Canada, one cannot trade mark an existing dictionary word. One can trademark a representation of a word. Canonical being a dictionary word, it cannot be trademarked in Canada - but particular combinations of colour, font, background, images could be trademarked. Ubuntu is also a dictionary word - just not in an English or French dictionary, the ones best known to CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office) and its associated bits of the government. So theoretically, one cannot trademark Ubuntu, the word. There are Canadian trademarks for representations of the word, but they have nothing to do with computers and Canonical. Having said that, "novel" combinations of ordinary dictionary words can be trademarked. I never bothered to registered "EdgeKeep" and "Securing the Edge", but I marked them as trademarks - (TM) instead of (R) - everywhere I used them. Had there ever been a dispute, precedent would have been on my side, but I could have lost to deep pockets. For example, Office cannot be trademarked as just a word, in most jurisdictions most of the time, but Microsoft Office can be. My understanding is that some jurisdictions limit the dictionary word restriction to specific languages, but whether this is de jure or de facto (by law or by convention), I do not know. So this gets complicated really quickly, because ubuntu and canonical are just words, Ubuntu and Canonical refer to specific products and companies, the U&C terms may be trademarkable in some jurisdictions but not all, and, in any case... ...if one needs to refer to Canonical the company, then one may, despite that word being potentially trademarked in one or more jurisdictions. Whether one may make as liberal reference to the products of that company is another question. But IANAL, and even if I was, it might not matter until a judge spoke on this particular question, or a relevantly similar one. Fun, eh? PS I really, really like the idea of using "RestrictedDerivativeBy<insertAdjectiveHere>Company" instead of Ubuntu or Canonical, because it makes the point so much better in a sarcastic and humourous way. It makes all of the above moot, but when did mootness ever stop a good debate? :->

ilbe 13y ago

Thanks for the context. I used to use Ubuntu and found this feature to be nonsense. Who would come up with this idea? Let's make money by sending peoples searches to Amazon whenever they search for a file on their PC. Of course when I can't find my file, I'd love and expect the convenience to... get it on Amazon?!