Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

anonscm.debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: “Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

#41

Post by davexunit »

stolio wrote: post #21

Canonical has been kind enough to not include the name "Debian" on their Debian derivative's front[0] or about[1] pages. It finally shows up in the about - about [short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical] page. [2] Compare this to Crunchbang - another Debian derivative that many Ubuntu users have fled to - their homepage includes the word Debian 6 times.[3] On their about page a link to Debian using the pro…

Canonical doesn't even really mention the kernel Linux or the GNU project anymore.

Re: “Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

#42

Post by natch »

natch wrote: post #40

Curious, if anyone knows: how exactly are the square brackets in this line helping do anything that wouldn't be accomplished without them? /^[U][b][u][n][t][u]$/

Figured out the answer to my own question: it must be a silly/clever way to avoid having the literal string "Ubuntu" in the source.

Re: “Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

#43

Post by marcosdumay »

adrianmalacoda wrote: post #9
cconover wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the backstory: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...

Thanks. I'm not a fan of the whole Unity Amazon integration deal myself, but I think there's a clear difference between a site critical of Ubuntu using their name in the domain and their logo in the header image versus a passing remark in documentation or code. Mind you, I think the original case was a clear attempt at abuse of trademark law against legitimate criticism. I do feel, however, that the distro-that-can't…

> there's a clear difference between a site critical of Ubuntu using their name in the domain and their logo in the header image versus a passing remark in documentation or code.

IANAL, but as far as I understand US law (it's crazy, but everybody needs to learn it nowadays), the first use is explicitly permitted, while a passing citation in documentation is a more nebulous issue.

Re: “Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

#44

Post by comice »

chrismonsanto wrote: post #17
comice wrote: post #14

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

Who gives a crap about what they deem acceptable. That's definitely non-enforceable in cases like "ubuntusucks.com"

I am talking about this instance where Joey Hess is suggesting Debian cannot use the trademark without risking trouble.

I don't happen to agree with Canonical's behaviour in this respect, or believe it's enforceable.

Re: “Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

#45

Post by comice »

jamesbritt wrote: post #24
comice wrote: post #14

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

... what they deem acceptable and what they don't. Isn't law what decides these things? Canonical may be full of hopes and dreams about how they prefer people to behave, but they don't make the laws.

The law doesn't decide what Canonical deem acceptable, no.

However, the law (or more accurately, judges interpreting the law) get to decide whether it's enforceable.

Re: “Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

#46

Post by comice »

Bill_Dimm wrote: post #32
comice wrote: post #14

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 don't really see how Canonical can take away the right to use a trademark nominatively[1], as provided by law, just by declaring your rights to be gone in a policy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

I suspect and hope that you are right.

But if you were in his position would you fancy fighting it?

Re: “Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

#47

Post by jasonlotito »

chrismonsanto wrote: post #17
comice wrote: post #14

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

Who gives a crap about what they deem acceptable. That's definitely non-enforceable in cases like "ubuntusucks.com"

Well, the original problem wasn't ubuntusucks.com, but fixubuntu.com with the Ubuntu logo. One could make the argument that those two things combined without a clear disclaimer at the very least could be an issue.

I do think Canonical's approach was far too heavy-handed, but this case is nothing like ubuntusucks.com (on multiple levels =)).

Re: “Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

#48

Post by comice »

strathmeyer wrote: post #33
comice wrote: post #14

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 going to assume you get written permission from the NFL every time you use your DVR, have some friends over to watch the game, or talk about the game with your friends and coworkers.

What is an NFL?

And DVR? Is that like the pirate bay?

Re: “Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

#49

Post by Flimm »

davidp wrote: post #36
Flimm wrote: post #31

This is definitely a horrible move from Canonical, but I imagine they are simply following their legal counsel. In general terms, you have to prosecute violators of your trademark if you want to keep your trademark (unlike copyright or patents). In this case, they're probably making things worse for themselves overall, but I wish people would take the complexities of trademark law in account before accusing them of c…

Yes. Debian has its own restrictions on one of its own logos. See the terms on their restricted use logo on their Logos page[1]; they reserve the right to assert copyright privilege in the same way. [1]: http://www.debian.org/logos/

I clicked on your link, and it turns out that Debian have two logos: an open use one, and a restricted one. The one you probably know and love is actually the open use one, I've never seen the restricted one before.

(BTW, copyright and trademarks are very different things, be careful with your terminology.)

Re: “Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

#50

Post by comice »

hyperion2010 wrote: post #16
comice wrote: post #14

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

Except that policies like that are completely meaningless in the face of the law. They are like the rules you used to make up as a kid.

Meaningless in the face of the law doesn't mean it's meaningless.

It describes under what circumstances they'll send threatening letters and otherwise stamp their feet. Some people are intimidated by that kind of thing. And it can certainly cost you some real time and money dealing with it, and they have more than you.

Post reply on HN