11–20 of 82 posts
No context. Seems petty? The issue was about the logo
[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...
Edit: formatting
I take it the Debian derivative from Canonical that cannot be named is sort of like a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor[0] for the average user? I'm curious if there's some sort of backstory to this. [0] http://www.pnaelv.net/
Here's the backstory: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...
Thanks Mark!
While it is extremely unlikely that Canonical ever would, the point stands that they've done this at least once to others. By taking this action Debian is protecting their users from what they perceive as an IP threat.
While it may seem a little silly, I am very glad they're doing this if only because it's drawing attention to how far Canonical has gone with some of their whacky and controlling decisions.
Context, for those who want it- http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...
They very specifically say you need permission in domains:
"You will require Canonical’s permission to use ... any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes."
May it be said that humanitytoothers is also unpronounceable? Can I use it in my homepage? The domain humanitytoothers.com is available! What does that mean?
I'm no Canonical apologist, but they do have a "intellectual property" document and are quite clear about what they deem acceptable and what they don't. They very specifically say you need permission in domains: "You will require Canonical’s permission to use ... any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes." http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy
I'm no Canonical apologist, but they do have a "intellectual property" document and are quite clear about what they deem acceptable and what they don't. They very specifically say you need permission in domains: "You will require Canonical’s permission to use ... any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes." http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy
No context. Seems petty? The issue was about the logo
Petty as all heck on the part of Canonical, I agree.
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.
So Canonical started abusing trademark law to silence critics, by claiming they could only use the name Ubuntu with permission and in specific contexts. Debian, being the distro of freedom, is preemptively removing the trademarked name in order to make it impossible for Canonical to do the same to them. While it is extremely unlikely that Canonical ever would, the point stands that they've done this at least once to…
Speaking it's name only makes it more powerful.