| 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. |
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.