[grifferz]

But Canonical refuses to clarify what you would have to remove in order to make Ubuntu redistributable without asking their permission.

In fact, going further, Mark Shuttleworth has plainly stated that there is no process or tool which can ever be made that would turn an Ubuntu install into something that could be redistributed, unless permission is first sought on a case by case basis:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-Novem...

If Canonical wanted people to be able to redistribute something based on Ubuntu, that does not infringe any Canonical trademark, then it would be very simple for them to enable that. But they don't appear to want to enable that. And without that right, Ubuntu is not free software.

Note that Canonical relies on the right to redistribute a modified version of Debian in order for Ubuntu to exist at all.

[bryanlarsen]

"plainly stated that there is no process or tool which can ever be made that would turn an Ubuntu install into something that could be redistributed"

Mark Shuttleworth is referring to the process to redistribute something called "Ubuntu".

You could certainly create and distribute a tool that would strip trademarks from Ubuntu, and distribute both that tool and your hacked version of Ubuntu, as long as you don't call it Ubuntu. Nobody's willing to do that simply because a version of Ubuntu not called Ubuntu isn't worth much to most people interested in doing such a thing.

If OVH called their hacked-up version of Ubuntu "OVHuntu" they'd lose some of their customers to competitors who have a "real" Ubuntu install option.

[grifferz]

Mark Shuttleworth is referring to the process to redistribute something called "Ubuntu".

The email from Mark seems extremely clear that Canonical's position is that there is no way to distribute a derivative of Ubuntu without 1) joining the Ubuntu community, and 2) asking for permission to distribute.

It does not clarify that all you need to do is remove Canonical's trademarks. It flat out just says that you can't distribute a derivative without permission.

Mark's email is a response to one asking for guidance on what would have to be removed in order to do perform non-infringing distribution. It doesn't ask Ubuntu to do this work of removal. It asks Ubuntu to identify what work needs to be done. mjg59 suggests that he will do the work, possibly by means of having his upload privileges to Ubuntu reinstated. That seems to be an indication of him being willing to do it.

The reply then comes from Mark stating that there is no work that could be done to enable this.

You could certainly create and distribute a tool that would strip trademarks from Ubuntu, and distribute both that tool and your hacked version of Ubuntu, as long as you don't call it Ubuntu.

That appears to be the sort of thing that mjg59 proposed to create, but was told that would never be allowed. Mark's email is literally a response to a request for clarity on what needs to be done to not infringe, i.e. how to do what you are suggesting is permitted.

[mhall119]

> possibly by means of having his upload privileges to Ubuntu reinstated. That seems to be an indication of him being willing to do it.

He wouldn't need upload rights, he could do the work and ask an Ubuntu Developer to review and sponsor it. In fact, anybody can contribute anything to Ubuntu this way, doesn't matter if you're an old kernel hacker or a total newbie.

[vacri]

Where in the four freedoms does it say that a bit of elbow-grease is a disqualifier? Just because Ubuntu doesn't have a spoonfeeding script to do it all for you doesn't make it 'not free'. Shuttleworth points out in that link of yours that keeping tabs on such a thing and providing an auto-stripping script is a waste of their resources and of dubious use to anyone but MJG.

The truth of the matter is, that if you want to use any component of ubuntu, it's easy enough to just recompile without the trademarks and redistribute. If you want to use the whole thing but with minor changes, either just talk to them to get a license, or put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks.

[lorenzhs]

> The truth of the matter is, that if you want to use any component of ubuntu, it's easy enough to just recompile without the trademarks and redistribute. If you want to use the whole thing but with minor changes, either just talk to them to get a license, or put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks.

That goes against the four freedoms of free software, though:

Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)

It also goes beyond what is covered by trademark law (due to absence of a concept of non-infringing use). That's exactly mjg59's point, btw.

[rtkwe]

In a letter of the law sort of way Ubuntu could still be following that. You're completely free to redistribute an unmodified or modified version so long as your modifications include stripping the Ubuntu marks. Of course that's very much against the spirit of the freedoms.

It's a tricky position trying to build a company around OSS free software. On the one hand you have the principals of free software on the other you have the fact that people distributing crapified version of your software with your name still on it means you're getting a lot of support and complaints that cost money to deal with even if it's just to determine that it's Crap-Ubuntu and not the version you've made.

[lorenzhs]

Well that's the point that Matthew has been making all these years. The problem is that Canonical say "you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries", no matter whether the use of the trademark is infringing (neither Matthew nor I have an argument with that, they need to protect their trademarks) or not (this is where they use copyright law to require removal of the trademark, even if trademark law wouldn't require it).

Nobody's arguing that you should be allowed to take an Ubuntu image, mess it up, and distribute the result under the name Ubuntu. That would clearly infringe on Canonical's trademarks.

[trademarklaw777]

Trademark law can vary. As I understand it can be easy to lose a trademark if you let it become generic.

So it may not violate trademark law but it could dilute a trademark.

Also the section on packaging for distribution in the GNU Philosophy says requests to remove logos and names, i.e. trademarks, before a downstream party can distribute the rest is acceptable.

As I understand it, many of the most useful packages are from upstream anyway. It's mostly Canonical metapackages that define Upstream packages to install that are in question and they contain canonical logos and names

It states a couple times at least that upholding the core tenets are key. Ubuntu isn't creating scenario such that distribution is now impossible, or claiming control over the upstream which are arguably the most valuable.

Could be a good project. A Canonical free "Ubuntu" that replaces their metapackages yet results in a nearly identical OS. Problem solved.

Really one could probably just write some Ansible to do this to Debian these days.

Regardless, a solution is readily in reach for sufficiently skilled users. Given that, I have a hard time taking this as nothing more than kicking up dust for the sake of being right

[vacri]

You missed the bit "or put in the elbow-grease yourself". Software can be free yet still require you to remove their trademarks. Look at pretty much any other distro, for example. You aren't asking to use the software, you're asking to use the trademark. Put in the work to remove the trademark yourself, and the software violates none of the four freedoms.

Elsewhere in this thread you're pinging someone else about spreading misinformation. You're doing the same thing yourself.

[lorenzhs]

No, because Canonical's requirements go beyond trademark law, which has a notion of non-infringing use. Canonical use copyright law to force you to remove every mention of any of their trademarks, and have publicly stated that there is no tool that can remove all such references and you basically always have to ask for permission (see Mark Shuttleworth's comment, which was linked elsewhere in this discussion). That certainly doesn't meet the requirements of free software.

[vacri]

Point me to the bit in the Canonical IP policy, not the bit in MJG's opinion, which goes beyond trademark law.

https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual...

The relevant stanza is "IF you associate with the trademarks THEN you need approval and certification. OTHERWISE just remove the trademarks. IF you need that approval and certification, THEN you need licensing".

Where does it go beyond trademark law? They even later on explicitly state you can parody them, just don't suggest endorsement without a license.

> see Mark Shuttleworth's comment, which was linked elsewhere in this discussion

The only link of Shuttleworth's in this thread is: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-Novem...

In that link, nowhere does he say "there is no tool". He says that Canonical is not going to do the ongoing work required. Nothing is stopping someone else from making the tool and keeping it up to date. He does say that there is no work that will change Ubuntu's position on derivatives.

He does give a 'boiled down' summary, which you're taking out of context. As someone talking about licenses should know, 'summaries' don't count, only the actual wording does. He's made a comment on a mailing list, not a formal presentation of policy.

[lorenzhs]

Gladly: 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.

This means that if you don't associate it with the trademarks, you have to remove and replace the trademarks AND recompile the source. Note that this covers any use of the trademarks, not just infringing ones. You gloss over that case as "just remove the trademark", but trademark law doesn't require that if the use isn't infringing. So Canonical are using copyright law to prevent non-infringing uses of their trademarks.

[fredgrott]

no, in fact it does not go beyond trademark law..ask a trademark lawyer dude..

[lorenzhs]

While I cannot claim personal experience in trademark law, the US Patent and Trademark Office's website is pretty clear here. Quoting from https://www.uspto.gov/page/about-trademark-infringement:

> To support a trademark infringement claim in court, a plaintiff must prove that it owns a valid mark, that it has priority (its rights in the mark(s) are "senior" to the defendant's), and that the defendant's mark is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers about the source or sponsorship of the goods or services offered under the parties' marks.

Note the last bit, "is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers about the source or sponsorship of the goods or services offered". Canonical's IP policy requires removal of all mentions of the trademark, even if they do not meet these requirements.

[grifferz]

put in the elbow-grease yourself to remove the trademarks

Mark Shuttleworth has made it clear that in Canonical's opinion there is nothing you can do that would let you skip the step of asking their permission on a case by case basis.

Canonical will not answer a straight-forward question such as "if every instance of every registered Canonical trademark were removed, would that be sufficient?"

This sort of thing has been asked many times.

[vacri]

You're not even being internally consistent. In your first statement you say that he's made it clear that 'nothing' can be done to avoid asking permission.

In the second statement you say he's being evasive on the same issue.

So, give me a few links of these 'many times', because you're not exactly being the most reliable source yourself.

[vertex-four]

Canonical are being evasive on the issue. mjg shows that because we cannot be sure of what Canonical believe and what they will put their lawyers towards, we have to ask Canonical's permission to redistribute Ubuntu no matter what we do to it.

EDIT: screwed up a name.

[vacri]

"Mark Shuttleworth has made it clear that in Canonical's opinion". Forgive me for treating the two entities as one and the same, but the point remains the same in the GP's comment. First, Canonical's position is "made clear", and secondly it's evasive.

You guys will do amazing dances to avoid sticking to a line of reasoning. You'll pan Shuttleworth for not giving you the answers you want, and then turn around and claim he's not representative of Canonical when it suits you. You'll quite happily take MJG's opinion as legally binding fact, but refuse to take Shuttleworth's opinion of MJG misrepresenting and misquoting discussions they've had together. That link above of Shuttleworth's is pretty clear in why he's not interested in talking to MJG and his loaded (in Shuttleworth's opinion) requests.

Save us from the fucking puritans, who have to sling shit at a project that's done more than most at actually putting non-proprietary software into the hands of people all over the world. I donate to the Software Freedom Conservancy, so free software is at least somewhat important to me, but you know what else is important? Not wasting everyone's time and energy nit-picking over shitty, trivial points. Pretending that it's not clear what the IP policy says: remove the trademarks and recompile and you're sorted. MJG's "interpretation" is a "squint hard and look sideways" interpretation - the relevant bit explicitly says "if you are going to associate it with the trademarks". Pretending that they reserve the right to send lawyers after you if you strip the trademarks and don't associate it with the trademark is just fiction.

The sad fucking thing is that all the people with hate-boners about ubuntu and this issue of MJG's actually don't want to use ubuntu. They just say they do to make their case. "Oh, I really want to use your Unity and Mir, but I'll shit all over you on trivialities because Canonical is all NIH on projects like Unity and Mir". It's really dishonest. And it's why, in that link, Shuttleworth is saying that it's a lot of work for Canonical, all for something that the complainers aren't actually going to use.

Disclaimer: I use debian myself. I just get tired of progressives infighting over bullshit.

[vertex-four]

Yes, Canonical's position is made clear that you have to ask them or they might decide that to screw you over in the future. They've made this position clear by refusing to clarify how they would respond, and therefore requiring that you ask them on a case-by-case basis.

Sorry, I screwed up a name, I'm not close to this issue and didn't realise the blog poster is not named Mark, and that Mark is the head of Ubuntu.