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

51–60 of 82 posts

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

#51

Post by ilbe »

tedivm wrote: post #13

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…

Thanks for the context. I used to use Ubuntu and found this feature to be nonsense. Who would come up with this idea? Let's make money by sending peoples searches to Amazon whenever they search for a file on their PC. Of course when I can't find my file, I'd love and expect the convenience to... get it on Amazon?!

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

#52

Post by hdevalence »

Flimm wrote: post #38
hdevalence wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trademark law does not require you to harass people using your trademark to refer to your product. I wish people would not try to justify corporate bullying based on a misunderstanding of trademark law. Also: it's legal counsel, not legal council.

IANAL, but a domain name is more than just a reference to a product. ICANN gives trademark holders additional privileges when it comes to domain names.

http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/ip/

> Complaints regarding trademark infringement due to website content and domain names are outside of ICANN's scope and authority.

The only case where ICANN Has anything to say is in a case of domain squatting, which this isn't: although Canonical has a trademark interest in "Ubuntu", there's no violation since it's being used nominatively,and it's not being used in bad faith. (Search for UDRP for more information on this policy).

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

#53

Post by Flimm »

stolio wrote: post #39
Flimm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do include Debian in their about page: http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu Futhermore, you missed the "Ubuntu and Debian" page, which is only a two links away from the home page: http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/ubuntu-and-debian

ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu is literally link number two above, I realize it's a bit obfuscated The point I was making is how deeply the connection to Debian is buried on the ubuntu.com site and contrasting it to Crunchbang's approach which is to give back mindshare As for your two links point, the fastest path I can find is 3: / --> /about --> /about/about-ubuntu --> about/about-ubuntu/ubuntu-and-debian 3 clicks,…

> The point I was making is how deeply the connection to Debian is buried on the ubuntu.com site and contrasting it to Crunchbang's approach which is to give back mindshare

I accept that point.

(TBH, I shouldn't have bothered with my previous comment, because it was just pedantic).

In my mind, Ubuntu is competing (or at least trying to compete) with Google, Microsoft and Apple. They can't afford to waste valuable front page space on things that would only interest people like us. I think that's perfectly understandable. They still have an Ubuntu and Debian page for those who care. If sharing credit is important to you, than by all means go with something like Crunchbang.

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

#54

Post by chrismonsanto »

jasonlotito wrote: post #47
chrismonsanto wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 =)).

I am of course not referring to this particular instance, but posing a counterexample to the overly broad language in their intellectual property policy.

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

#55

Post by Flimm »

hdevalence wrote: post #52
Flimm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but a domain name is more than just a reference to a product. ICANN gives trademark holders additional privileges when it comes to domain names.

http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/ip/ > Complaints regarding trademark infringement due to website content and domain names are outside of ICANN's scope and authority. The only case where ICANN Has anything to say is in a case of domain squatting, which this isn't: although Canonical has a trademark interest in "Ubuntu", there's no violation since it's being used nominatively,and it's not being…

In that case Canonical have really shot themselves in the foot :)

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

#57

Post by Bill_Dimm »

comice wrote: post #46
Bill_Dimm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That really depends on whether or not I could afford to (the sad reality of our legal system). Fortunately, the EFF seems to be helping him: https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trade...

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

#58

Post by Flimm »

marcosdumay wrote: post #43
adrianmalacoda wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm very surprised by your statement. It would seem to me to be the opposite way round. Surely a passing a citation is fine, it's using someone's trademark in your branding (and a domain name and logo is arguably branding) that's the nebulous issue? Could you point out to me where I could learn about US law that would teach me this counter-intuitive reasoning?

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

#59

Post by dragonwriter »

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)

They can't. OTOH, limitations on exclusive rights in trademarks (or any other form of IP) vary a lot by jurisdiction, and within a jurisdiction over time; its fairly common for organizations to state policies where the domain of things for which permission is stated to be required overlaps the area of limitations on the right in question; to the extent those overlap, the stated policy has no effect, it only has effect in the intersection of the area where the company asserts a restriction and the area where local law gives the company control.
Post reply on HN