Canonical’s IPRights Policy incompatible with Ubuntu licence policy

[Michael Hall]

The CC has been talking with multiple people in Canonical, including legal, 
for more than a year onthis very issue. Any suggestion that we have not or 
will not do that is wrong.

We determined that Canonical is acting in the belief that their policy 
complies both with the copyright licenses of the packages in the archives 
and with common industry practice.

Jonathan was given this response to his inquiry.

It in within the CC's mandate to ensure that everybody in our community, 
including Canonical, is acting in good faith, which we have done to the 
best of our ability. 

Canonical is not claiming to have any rights, or placing any restrictions, 
that are not allowed by the software licenses in the archives. As long as 
they are not doing that, then there is nothing for the CC to change or make 
a statement against.


On Monday, May 4, 2015 6:48:44 AM EDT, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> 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.
> 



-- 
Sent using Dekko from my Ubuntu device