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

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Daniel Holbach <daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 04.05.2015 11:06, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > Does it take hours to send an email on behalf of the CC to Canonical
> Legal
> > and ask what is going on here? Does it take hours to write a short
> > statement like
> > Jonathan has asked? No it doesn't and this is a very important issue.
>
> Come on. You know that this is not about making a one-sentence
> statement. The world is just not as simple as that.
>
> To me it's quite obvious that Ubuntu and Canonical need to have a handle
> on what people can take, modify and distribute and can still call Ubuntu.
>

This is more than that though you have control over trademark but not over
redistribution of hundreds of upstream software applications that Canonical
has had little role or none even in developing.

This is a violation of the licensing of software that Ubuntu distributes
and that
Canonical and Ubuntu both benefit from.

>
> Why should Canonical waive its rights here? Who will defend the
> trademark in a random court in some jurisdiction around the globe if it
> becomes necessary? The people who demand a one-line answer here? I don't
> think so.
>
>
That is the thing I think you are arguing that Canonical has rights here
that
it actually does not or that at least is disputed. I do not believe the
underlying
licenses of the software that makes up Ubuntu (much of which comes from
upstream)
allows or entitles Canonical to the rights it is claiming it has.



> Many projects around Ubuntu, commercial and non-commercial ones, prosper
> and do well and we have mechanisms for distributing software. Whenever
> it was necessary, the right people made amends to processes, tools and
> made exceptions. This can all be figured out.
>

And I think that is all that Jonathan is asking for here is that this all
be figured out
and he would like the CC's help in doing so because his own efforts at
contacting
and trying to resolve at all levels of Canonical have failed.

Anyways we now have an email open with the SFLC as was earlier suggested.

-- 
Benjamin Kerensa
http://benjaminkerensa.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/attachments/20150504/9a47bb39/attachment.html>