On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Bruce Perens <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know how recently this group has discussed this, but the Ubuntu > intellectual property policy seems to be a bit over the top. I understand > their need to protect their trademarks, but I think they're introducing some > GPL conflicts in doing so to this extreme.
it would be interesting to compare these "requirements" against those of redhat, where they similarly request people not to use "redhat" in recompiled / redistributed source code. > Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, > certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the > Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will > need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. i see your point. one might reasonably claim that by including the trademarks - and distributing them under the GPL - that canonical has GPL-licensed those words. thus it cannot therefore impose restrictions without itself losing rights under the GPL [and likewise neither can redhat. dang. how long has it been before anybody even noticed this, bruce?? :) ] but there is another take on this: that canonical is the only company that is permitted to do the distribution with the trademark, and that all others must (including mirrors...) *REMOVE* the trademarks.... wait it says "modified", so if you're just a mirror you're ok. however any company, individual or organisation that takes ubuntu .debs and say even *adds* to them, that's redistribution, and they will be forced - like the company that i work for who maintain their own internal mirror and add their own packages - to comply with the stupid requirements. hmmm... i'll forward this to dr stallman privately and see what he thinks. l.
