Re: Canonical’s IPRights Policy incompatible with Ubuntu licence policy
bkerensa at ubuntu.com
Mon May 4 00:27:35 UTC 2015
Simple thing is a community flavor has asked the CC to intervene in this
and the CC should do that. If the CC cannot what makes you think Jonathan
would have anymore success?
On May 3, 2015 4:50 PM, "cprofitt" <cprofitt at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 23:34 +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
> > ** Jonathan Riddell <jr at jriddell.org> [2015-05-01 23:05]:
> > > This is a very significant issue for the Ubuntu community which I have
> > > brought up with the Ubuntu community council for a number of years
> > > no success.
> > >
> > > This Canonical IPRights Policy is for some reason on the ubuntu.com
> > > website.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It says "Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be
> > > approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to
> > > it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the
> > > Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your
> > > binaries."
> > >
> > > It confuses the issues of Trademark and distribution, which are
> > > issues. Nobody has a problem with restricting trading with the Ubuntu
> > > name. But it claims that the binary packages are not freely
> > > redistributable which is incorrect with any definition of free
> > > including Ubuntu's own.
> > I may be missing something here, but how is this a problem? It sounds
> > but more flexible, to the way Red Hat work, and the licensing that
> > Centos, White Box Linux, etc.. Nothing impacting the GPL or ability to
> > redistribute GPL code at all.
> > As I read it, and I'm not a lawyer, it is only asking for approval "if
> > going to associate it with the Trademarks". You are perfectly able to do
> > anything the GPL allows if you "remove and replace the Trademarks",
> > in turn require you to recompile the source code and create your own
> > as part of the process of removing the trademarks. Those packages that
> > trademarks in will, therefore, not be impacted.
> > So if you want to use the Canonical branding and trademarks then either
> > approval or remove them, which seems fair enough. Of course if you are
> > redistributing a version of Ubuntu that is not modified then you have no
> > problems in the first place.
> > A grey area may be spinning an updated version of a ISO, in which case
is it a
> > modified version of Ubuntu because you've messed with the ISO, or not
> > is all official, unmodified, Ubuntu packages? That is most likely a
> > legalese issue rather than something that anyone is likely to worry
> > though.
> > >
> > > From Ubuntu's licence policy:
> > > "Must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under
> > > licence. Just having the source code does not convey the same freedom
> > > having the right to change it. Without the ability to modify
> > > Ubuntu community cannot support software, fix bugs, translate it, or
> > > improve it." which is not compatible with the restriction claimed on
> > > binary packages
> > >
> > > From the About Ubuntu page on ubuntu.com
> > > "Ubuntu applications are all free and open source — so you can share
> > > with anyone you like, as often as you like." which is different from
> > > restriction claimed by Canonical's policy.
> > >
> > > Canonical does not hold the copyright on binary packages any more
> > > does on the source packages. Rumours that somehow running a compiler
> > > computer you own makes you a copyright holder are incorrect. Claiming
> > > binaries can not be freely redistributed is an insult to the
> > > upstream developers who do own the copyright to the works we package
> > > distribute. And of course the claim is incompatible with the GPL, a
> > > upon which we depend heavily and which we can not afford to breach.
> > > incorrect claim does affect both upstreams and their willingness to
> > > with us and downstreams and their willingness to use us. Claims that
> > > somehow we don't care about derivative distributions and are happy to
> > > restrict them are frankly scary.
> > >
> > > I'm at a loss on how to proceed on this matter as the community
> > > seems unconcerned at the problem and Canonical is happy to carry on
> > > perpetrating the myth. I'd welcome any suggestions.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > > --
> > > Ubuntu-community-team mailing list
> > > Ubuntu-community-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> > ** end quote [Jonathan Riddell]
> > --
> > Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | http://www.aptanet.com/ | 023 9238
> > Registered in England | Company No: 4905028 | Registered Office: Ralls
> > Parklands Business Park, Forrest Road, Denmead, Waterlooville, Hants,
> Thanks for the email. I read things essentially the same way. Though I
> do understand the complexity of not knowing which packages contain the
> trademark and which do not (inside the binary blob).
> One problem I do acknowledge is the fact that the Jonathan has brought
> the issue up with the Community Council repeatedly while not being
> willing to consider the exact opinion you have just offered, nor the
> fact that the Community Council is not tasked with making legal
> statements with regard to specific language Canonical is using.
> I would urge anyone with a specific issue to reach out to Canonical
> Ubuntu-community-team mailing list
> Ubuntu-community-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ubuntu-community-team