3 ms·
i don't see them upholding this violation in court so i will carry on.
by x5n1 11y ago
i don't see them upholding this violation in court so i will carry on.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoTrademarks are "enforce it or lose it". They may have to if they want to keep their trademark (stupid system I know). EDITED s/use/enforce/ Thank you lightlyused
- x5n1 11y agoyeah let's see a test case and then i'll worry about it.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoThe only issue is if they make you the test case.
- lightlyused 11y agoThey are using it, perhaps you mean "enforce it or lose it"?
- JupiterMoon 11y agoThanks for correction. I edited it.
- geofft 11y agoOne of the things you get with trademarks is a right to license them. There's no law that stops Canonical from granting a trademark license to anyone who uses or depends on unmodified Ubuntu binaries.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoHave they licensed it? If so no worries otherwise...
- geofft 11y agoThey will give you licenses if you ask, and those licenses are apparently non-sublicensable, making them basically useless for a free-software project. https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3de41m/fsf_statement_on_canonicals_updated_licensing/ct4y696?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3de41m/fsf_statement... They may also charge for it. https://twitter.com/marcdeslaur/status/623262991216214016 https://twitter.com/marcdeslaur/status/623262991216214016 (both of these people are Canonical employees; unclear if they are speaking officially.)
- morninj 11y agoYes, and moreover, there's no trademark violation when you push an Ubuntu container to your web server.