31–40 of 82 posts
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 censorship.
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
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)
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
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…
Just to be clear, Debian didn't do this, I did. And only, so far in one package, which can be used to mirror Debian or various of its derivatives.
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…
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.
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…
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…
Then, It is a bit paranoid, but Debian people work very har to clear their distro from any IP risk, and writting down the name of that distro that can not be named is now a risk.
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…
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.
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…
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
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, each link with it's own level of prominence. It's safe to say the Debian connection isn't featured for the average user. And I would imagine well over half the website is available within 3 three clicks of the homepage, I have half a mind to crawl it to find out...
EDIT: I looked again and I can't find the word "Debian" at http://www.ubuntu.com/about/, so either my search feature is broken or it's not there
/^[U][b][u][n][t][u]$/