|
|
|
|
|
|
by lorenzhs
3491 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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