[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.