Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by puller 4599 days ago
No context. Seems petty?

The issue was about the logo
2 comments
reidrac 4599 days ago
Read the letter published by Ars[1], they refer not only to the logo but to the "Ubuntu word" (trademark of Canonical) and "to use the Ubuntu trademarks and Ubuntu word in a domain name would require approval from Canonical".

[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...

Edit: formatting

link
Karunamon 4599 days ago
Petty as all heck on the part of Canonical, I agree.
link
Flimm 4599 days ago
It doesn't matter, trademark law requires you to pro-actively prosecute violators if you want to keep your trademark.

Although I still wish Canonical was more transparent about who gets to use its trademarks and who doesn't: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/394328

sp332: You're right, although it's not clear to me that this definitely is not a violation. I hope it isn't for the sake of free speech.

link
sp332 4599 days ago
It doesn't require you to threaten people who don't violate your trademark, but they did anyway.
link
NateDad 4599 days ago
Show me where in their message there were any threats.
link
sp332 4599 days ago
It was very polite, and props to them for that. But that doesn't mean there were no threats.

to use the Ubuntu trademarks and Ubuntu word in a domain name would require approval from Canonical... Unfortunately, in this instance we cannot give you permission to use Ubuntu trademarks...

This has a big "OR ELSE" implicit in it. Requiring means enforcing.

link
tedunangst 4599 days ago
How fun. It doesn't require you to send requests to people who don't violate your trademark, but they did anyway.
link