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

[Rohan Garg]

> 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.
>

This is my interpretation of the legalese as well, however, I'm not
entirely clear about what would constitute as trademark infringement
here.

Slightly convoluted example :

Many of the packages have 'ubuntu' in their versions. If those get
shipped in a modified version of Ubuntu, a user might see that in
their package manager and associate the derivative with Ubuntu, which
would constitute as violation of said policy.

Does this mean a derivative has to compile *all* packages while also
removing ubuntu from the package versions?

While I understand the CC is not a legal entity, and cannot offer
legal advice, I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this. I most
certainly won't hold this as legal advice FWIW.

Cheers
Rohan Garg