5 ms·
Except that policies like that are completely meaningless in the face of the law. They are like the rules you used to make up as a kid.
by hyperion2010 13y ago
Except that policies like that are completely meaningless in the face of the law. They are like the rules you used to make up as a kid.
- Flimm 13y agoYou have to enforce your trademark to keep it. It's one of the crucial differences between it and copyright or patents. mikeash: good point.
- mikeash 13y agoYes, but enforcement is only required to keep it when people are actually violating it. I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me that the "Fix Ubuntu" web site falls clearly under nominative fair use of the trademark, which is when you use a trademark to actually refer to the original product.
- glimmung 13y agoJust so - but /pretending/ to have such a right of veto speaks volumes about their approach. It respects neither the letter not the spirit of the law, and it makes Canonical look thuggish and crass. If they want to protect their brand, they could pay a little more attention to the reputational risks of their own behaviour.
- comice 13y agoMeaningless in the face of the law doesn't mean it's meaningless. It describes under what circumstances they'll send threatening letters and otherwise stamp their feet. Some people are intimidated by that kind of thing. And it can certainly cost you some real time and money dealing with it, and they have more than you.