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

[Charles Profitt]

---- On Mon, 04 May 2015 03:48:44 -0700 Benjamin Kerensa<bkerensa at gmail.com> wrote ---- 
 
 > 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. 
 > 
 
Does the same apply to the hundred of upstream software applications that Redhat has had little or role or none even in developing? In fact, I am not clear that Canonical has claimed that it has rights to 'all binaries'.

quote:
"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."

The quote above specifically says trademarks must be removed and the binaries recompiled. Can you point me to any claim that binaries not containing Ubuntu trademarks would need to be recompiled? From my vantage point I would chose to recompile just to ensure that all trademarks were removed. I believe CentOS did that very thing.

 > 
 > 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.
 
I think you may be making an assumption on what has been claimed by Canonical.

   
 > 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.
 
We have assisted Jonathan. He has not gotten the answer he determined was correct. He has been inflexible in his interpretation and confrontational with the community council.

 Charles


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/attachments/20150504/5f874cdf/attachment.html>