Re: Canonical’s IPRights Policy incompatible with Ubuntu licence policy

Benjamin Kerensa bkerensa at gmail.com
Mon May 4 02:48:59 UTC 2015


Do we have any documentation of what and what not the CC can take on? Or is
the list made up on the fly?

Why can the CC not take on this very important issue but expects somehow a
individual contributor can? To me that makes very little sense and some
explanation would be great.

Can the community council not discuss decide to take this on and assign
someone from council to email Canonical Legal and CC the council? Is that
really a prohibitive undertaking?

On May 3, 2015 6:39 PM, "Elfy" <ub.untu at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/05/15 01:27, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
>
> There are some things the CC is able to do, there are some things the CC
is not able to do.
>
> It is not a panacea, nor is it a master key.
>
> I do wonder at the reasoning behind people's assertion that is more than
it is.
>
> If I could cure all ills I would have done so long ago, probably before
half of you were born.
>
> I couldn't.
>
> I can't.
>
> Take it to someone, or something, who has responsibility.
>
> The Community Council cannot, and will not take responsilbility for each
an every perceived injustice.
>
> We can do no more here.
>
> Thank you
>
>> 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
now with
>> > > > no success.
>> > > >
>> > > > This Canonical IPRights Policy is for some reason on the ubuntu.com
>> > > > website.
>> > > >
>> > > >
http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy
>> > > >
>> > > > It says "Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be
>> > > > approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to
associate
>> > > > it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the
>> > > > Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create
your own
>> > > > binaries."
>> > > >
>> > > > It confuses the issues of Trademark and distribution, which are
unrelated
>> > > > 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
software
>> > > > including Ubuntu's own.
>> > >
>> > > I may be missing something here, but how is this a problem? It
sounds similar,
>> > > but more flexible, to the way Red Hat work, and the licensing that
resulted in
>> > > 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 you are
>> > > going to associate it with the Trademarks". You are perfectly able
to do
>> > > anything the GPL allows if you "remove and replace the Trademarks",
which will
>> > > in turn require you to recompile the source code and create your own
binaries
>> > > as part of the process of removing the trademarks. Those packages
that have no
>> > > trademarks in will, therefore, not be impacted.
>> > >
>> > > So if you want to use the Canonical branding and trademarks then
either get
>> > > 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 since it
>> > > is all official, unmodified, Ubuntu packages? That is most likely a
technical
>> > > legalese issue rather than something that anyone is likely to worry
about
>> > > though.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > From Ubuntu's licence policy:
>> > > > "Must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under
the same
>> > > > licence. Just having the source code does not convey the same
freedom as
>> > > > having the right to change it. Without the ability to modify
software, the
>> > > > 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 them
>> > > > with anyone you like, as often as you like."  which is different
from the
>> > > > restriction claimed by Canonical's policy.
>> > > >
>> > > > Canonical does not hold the copyright on binary packages any more
than it
>> > > > does on the source packages.  Rumours that somehow running a
compiler on a
>> > > > computer you own makes you a copyright holder are incorrect.
Claiming
>> > > > binaries can not be freely redistributed is an insult to the
thousands of
>> > > > upstream developers who do own the copyright to the works we
package and
>> > > > distribute. And of course the claim is incompatible with the GPL,
a licence
>> > > > upon which we depend heavily and which we can not afford to
breach.  This
>> > > > incorrect claim does affect both upstreams and their willingness
to work
>> > > > 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
council
>> > > > 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:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team
>> > >
>> > > ** end quote [Jonathan Riddell]
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >  Paul Tansom  |  Aptanet Ltd.  |  http://www.aptanet.com/  |  023
9238 0001
>> > >
=============================================================================
>> > > Registered in England | Company No: 4905028 | Registered Office:
Ralls House,
>> > > Parklands Business Park, Forrest Road, Denmead, Waterlooville,
Hants, PO7 6XP
>> >
>> > Paul:
>> >
>> > 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
>> > Legal.
>> >
>> > Charles
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ubuntu-community-team mailing list
>> > Ubuntu-community-team at lists.ubuntu.com
>> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Community and Forum Council's Member
> Xubuntu QA Lead
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-community-team mailing list
> Ubuntu-community-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/attachments/20150503/32a94930/attachment.html>


More information about the Ubuntu-community-team mailing list