Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?]
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org On 11.08.2010 07:27, Steve Langasek wrote: If the source code of a package shipped in Debian is identical to that provided upstream under the same name, there is no license issue; this is nominative use which is not prohibited, regardless of the existence of a trademark. I don't agree. Same product don't give the authority to use the same trademark. (think about a jeans factory who produce jeans for a well-know mark. It cannot sell using the same mark on its own.). Indeed, but the factory could say that it also makes jeans for that mark and that would not be trademark infringement because it would be honest descriptive use of the mark. (Of course, it may be a breach of their contract with the mark holder.) So, there is a boundary or limit somewhere there. A trademark is not as restrictive as some imaginary copyright-for-names. [...] and we routinely ship modified versions of source code using package names which match the upstream trademarks, on the grounds that package names are not trade but computer interfaces, and are thus also not trademark infringement. I was thinking because upstream allowed it (implicit license). Our internal requirement to ask for authorization to pack a software can we pack your software 'foo-bar' for Debian and others? implicitly grant us also the use of ev. trademark license for package name. Whose internal requirement? If debian.org, where is it? Maybe I should be contacting upstream to ask for authorisation instead of relying on LICENSE, but it's been some time since I uploaded a truly new package and I took a quick look at policy, devref and NM guide without spotting such a requirement. It is the first time I read a motivation like yours, so I'm curious about what the others think about trademarks. I think they're mostly irrelevant for package names and command names because they are an indication of the services provided by the package, in accordance with honest practices, as illustrated by stating our upstream source, so they're not infringing. But I'm not aware of precedent, so I feel that renaming may often be a good way of avoiding trouble with a well-funded aggressive trademark holder who claims package or command names are covered. Hope that informs, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100818101636.1164bf7...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Don Armstrong wrote: This is something that should be worked out with the Ubuntu One developers and/or Ubuntu people. So long as we and all of our downstream have the ability to exercise the rights guaranteed by the DFSG via a trademark grant (or probably even just e-mail communication to that effect), it should be redistributable in main. [Indeed, it may even be the case for #564276 as well.] Let me get an Ubuntu person to weigh in on this. I've talked with Matt Zimmerman, who talked with the correct people at Ubuntu, who confirmed that it was accpetable use from their perspective, that it was NOT necessary to rename or rebrand these packages from a trademark perspective. He indicated that the trademark policy as described on the website was primarily directed at Ubuntu as a distribution. [This is fairly similar to the way Debian itself polices its trademarks.] So, the names and such should all be ok, but we should fix the menus in software-center (#564276) as appropriate. Don Armstrong -- I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em. -- The Best of Will Rogers http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100818210738.gj22...@rzlab.ucr.edu
trademarks [Was: Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?]
Hello list, it follows some comments, corrections and questions about trademarks, based on Steve answer; not realyl relevant to the initial question/bug. On 11.08.2010 07:27, Steve Langasek wrote: If the source code of a package shipped in Debian is identical to that provided upstream under the same name, there is no license issue; this is nominative use which is not prohibited, regardless of the existence of a trademark. I don't agree. Same product don't give the authority to use the same trademark. (think about a jeans factory who produce jeans for a well-know mark. It cannot sell using the same mark on its own.). Anyway we ship different products: - different binaries (maybe they test more the compiler, the program and the dinamic links), thus our version could cause image damage if we have something broken in binary path - a lot more architectures (so broken behaviour due portability could cause image damage) - different support - different distribution channel (in principle they could track how many official (1-level) installation of various packages they have. (IIRC distribution channel can also be controlled by trademark [see grey imports]) Anyway we want security support, so we fall inevitably in your second case: If the source code is modified, and this modification requires us to give the software a different name, this is not a freeness problem - this is expressly permitted under DFSG #4. ok We do not require that the maintainer of a package pre-emptively rename the work in anticipation of such modifications; No, I think it a requirement by ftp-masters. And IIRC the Mozilla trademark problem was about our liberty to do security updates without need of a authorizations. and we routinely ship modified versions of source code using package names which match the upstream trademarks, on the grounds that package names are not trade but computer interfaces, and are thus also not trademark infringement. I was thinking because upstream allowed it (implicit license). Our internal requirement to ask for authorization to pack a software can we pack your software 'foo-bar' for Debian and others? implicitly grant us also the use of ev. trademark license for package name. It is the first time I read a motivation like yours, so I'm curious about what the others think about trademarks. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c6a8a4a.5010...@debian.org
Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free - added link
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Sorry, I left out the footnote on my last email. The link to the document covering usage of the Ubuntu trademark is here: http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy - -- Jordan Metzmeier -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJMYY9cAAoJEKj/C3qNthmTISMQAIoANgwaCG0dEay1J7OMldcY GspXAyrkctmAu9J8EEkMBQM52J4+YLJyZcW4HU2/pfV9bL8Yif39YROChfJsieVI Vy/KIOSh0557ySOfUvcMPl1VsH4F3uPrZH/euzXm6cmiG02kOBP+bjiYQv2rRZ3p 8IA42h1/84IARLchgJvyaxGpyc84lPXp22EVjZZrroYAhYiyGT7wypPl1B1lwVIB JLheaRLfQKhW4w1sT4CtwqyY5LjH22UHuuFZBJ+5rlIGfPhDXc8bxtdf6cvEgXGB hscU816hOUqncKL9FM1RdsyL4i82hECu1sSwd30wf3zNnm6i6BNMTtXng7YQVBUy jEAo6GWZo1dwvcfbpWkQDS+Sb/ybtCWPurGj1rtVC5uwZxxYkswFicg5kgh6zpXx js+LbUlt9IqSLBvqVGwWRpvSDw+uxHLpDhYyezoCuSij/lfMzkpdIL3nZzyOthpn ClVTYT2rVneEsPTxieRqOzc86MoQglB2RWYArg/Z9I9y9P4c6cgOQJdL482ZbtOA GeIfxvePG5saNVlezuUUWgdK/4U/OoveVFHp3yK5fS2LbvYY9I4Bpi60J2VJBUV7 LZYa0yVJYHtNgCk3/EylMzemLr/xeeje1VCZ5HnNVWfC5evrZlK+2wCVYSXg/Ynh X049+TLfJjpc8n705YOb =njZY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c618f5c.6060...@gmail.com
Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?
Jordan Metzmeier titan8...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I had been looking at this bug for a few days now as well the the Ubuntu Trademark Policy [1]. I am not a legal person, so I would like to bring it to the attention of people who are, to see if this policy makes the application non-free in its current state. The statements that stands out to me are: We reserve the right to review all usage within the open source community, and to object to any usage that appears to overstep the bounds of discussion and good-faith non-commercial development. and Restricted use that requires a trademark licence Permission from us is necessary to use any of the Trademarks under any circumstances other than those specifically permitted above. These include: - - Any commercial use. This makes it clearly non-free. It is best to just replace anything trademarked by Ubuntu. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100810.135059.487047624931241340.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Walter Landry wrote: This makes it clearly non-free. It is best to just replace anything trademarked by Ubuntu. An important caveat though, is that not every use of the word Ubuntu is trademarkable. So while the package in question certainly should be rebranded, it's not necessary to expunge every last mention of ubuntu from packages. In fact, upstream probably wants this package to be trivially rebrandable given the number of ubuntu derivatives there are. Don Armstrong -- Rule 30: A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go. -- Howard Tayler _Schlock Mercenary_ March 8th, 2003 http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20030308.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100810212625.gk31...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:26:25PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Walter Landry wrote: This makes it clearly non-free. It is best to just replace anything trademarked by Ubuntu. An important caveat though, is that not every use of the word Ubuntu is trademarkable. So while the package in question certainly should be rebranded, it's not necessary to expunge every last mention of ubuntu from packages. In fact, upstream probably wants this package to be trivially rebrandable given the number of ubuntu derivatives there are. How about Ubuntu™ One client (#559752), I think that this could affect those efforts too. Cheers -- René -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100810214437.gd6...@debian.org.sv
Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, René Mayorga wrote: How about Ubuntu™ One client (#559752), I think that this could affect those efforts too. Not sure. Parts of it are certainly something that trademark could apply to. [I think it's ok if it was works with Ubuntu One, but the Ubuntu One client may be probablematic.] This is something that should be worked out with the Ubuntu One developers and/or Ubuntu people. So long as we and all of our downstream have the ability to exercise the rights guaranteed by the DFSG via a trademark grant (or probably even just e-mail communication to that effect), it should be redistributable in main. [Indeed, it may even be the case for #564276 as well.] Let me get an Ubuntu person to weigh in on this. Don Armstrong -- Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. -- Mark Twain http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100810231110.gl31...@rzlab.ucr.edu
