<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/05/15 01:27, Benjamin Kerensa
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGOdq5=ryMK4ZKy+y9n-Wn=xEhGRef44ovLwRdN_7Nc8iYz-pw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">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?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
There are some things the CC is able to do, there are some things
the CC is not able to do.<br>
<br>
It is not a panacea, nor is it a master key.<br>
<br>
I do wonder at the reasoning behind people's assertion that is more
than it is.<br>
<br>
If I could cure all ills I would have done so long ago, probably
before half of you were born.<br>
<br>
I couldn't.<br>
<br>
I can't.<br>
<br>
Take it to someone, or something, who has responsibility.<br>
<br>
The Community Council cannot, and will not take responsilbility for
each an every perceived injustice.<br>
<br>
We can do no more here.<br>
<br>
Thank you<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGOdq5=ryMK4ZKy+y9n-Wn=xEhGRef44ovLwRdN_7Nc8iYz-pw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">On May 3, 2015 4:50 PM, "cprofitt" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:cprofitt@ubuntu.com">cprofitt@ubuntu.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 23:34 +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:<br>
> > ** Jonathan Riddell <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jr@jriddell.org">jr@jriddell.org</a>>
[2015-05-01 23:05]:<br>
> > > This is a very significant issue for the Ubuntu
community which I have<br>
> > > brought up with the Ubuntu community council for
a number of years now with<br>
> > > no success.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > This Canonical IPRights Policy is for some reason
on the <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://ubuntu.com">ubuntu.com</a><br>
> > > website.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy">http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > > It says "Any redistribution of modified versions
of Ubuntu must be<br>
> > > approved, certified or provided by Canonical if
you are going to associate<br>
> > > it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove
and replace the<br>
> > > Trademarks and will need to recompile the source
code to create your own<br>
> > > binaries."<br>
> > ><br>
> > > It confuses the issues of Trademark and
distribution, which are unrelated<br>
> > > issues. Nobody has a problem with restricting
trading with the Ubuntu<br>
> > > name. But it claims that the binary packages are
not freely<br>
> > > redistributable which is incorrect with any
definition of free software<br>
> > > including Ubuntu's own.<br>
> ><br>
> > I may be missing something here, but how is this a
problem? It sounds similar,<br>
> > but more flexible, to the way Red Hat work, and the
licensing that resulted in<br>
> > Centos, White Box Linux, etc.. Nothing impacting the
GPL or ability to<br>
> > redistribute GPL code at all.<br>
> ><br>
> > As I read it, and I'm not a lawyer, it is only asking
for approval "if you are<br>
> > going to associate it with the Trademarks". You are
perfectly able to do<br>
> > anything the GPL allows if you "remove and replace the
Trademarks", which will<br>
> > in turn require you to recompile the source code and
create your own binaries<br>
> > as part of the process of removing the trademarks.
Those packages that have no<br>
> > trademarks in will, therefore, not be impacted.<br>
> ><br>
> > So if you want to use the Canonical branding and
trademarks then either get<br>
> > approval or remove them, which seems fair enough. Of
course if you are<br>
> > redistributing a version of Ubuntu that is not
modified then you have no<br>
> > problems in the first place.<br>
> ><br>
> > A grey area may be spinning an updated version of a
ISO, in which case is it a<br>
> > modified version of Ubuntu because you've messed with
the ISO, or not since it<br>
> > is all official, unmodified, Ubuntu packages? That is
most likely a technical<br>
> > legalese issue rather than something that anyone is
likely to worry about<br>
> > though.<br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > From Ubuntu's licence policy:<br>
> > > "Must allow modification and distribution of
modified copies under the same<br>
> > > licence. Just having the source code does not
convey the same freedom as<br>
> > > having the right to change it. Without the
ability to modify software, the<br>
> > > Ubuntu community cannot support software, fix
bugs, translate it, or<br>
> > > improve it." which is not compatible with the
restriction claimed on<br>
> > > binary packages<br>
> > ><br>
> > > From the About Ubuntu page on <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://ubuntu.com">ubuntu.com</a><br>
> > > "Ubuntu applications are all free and open source
— so you can share them<br>
> > > with anyone you like, as often as you like."
which is different from the<br>
> > > restriction claimed by Canonical's policy.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Canonical does not hold the copyright on binary
packages any more than it<br>
> > > does on the source packages. Rumours that
somehow running a compiler on a<br>
> > > computer you own makes you a copyright holder are
incorrect. Claiming<br>
> > > binaries can not be freely redistributed is an
insult to the thousands of<br>
> > > upstream developers who do own the copyright to
the works we package and<br>
> > > distribute. And of course the claim is
incompatible with the GPL, a licence<br>
> > > upon which we depend heavily and which we can not
afford to breach. This<br>
> > > incorrect claim does affect both upstreams and
their willingness to work<br>
> > > with us and downstreams and their willingness to
use us. Claims that<br>
> > > somehow we don't care about derivative
distributions and are happy to<br>
> > > restrict them are frankly scary.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I'm at a loss on how to proceed on this matter as
the community council<br>
> > > seems unconcerned at the problem and Canonical is
happy to carry on<br>
> > > perpetrating the myth. I'd welcome any
suggestions.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Jonathan<br>
> ><br>
> > > --<br>
> > > Ubuntu-community-team mailing list<br>
> > > <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ubuntu-community-team@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-community-team@lists.ubuntu.com</a><br>
> > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team</a><br>
> ><br>
> > ** end quote [Jonathan Riddell]<br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.aptanet.com/">http://www.aptanet.com/</a>
| 023 9238 0001<br>
> >
=============================================================================<br>
> > Registered in England | Company No: 4905028 |
Registered Office: Ralls House,<br>
> > Parklands Business Park, Forrest Road, Denmead,
Waterlooville, Hants, PO7 6XP<br>
><br>
> Paul:<br>
><br>
> Thanks for the email. I read things essentially the same
way. Though I<br>
> do understand the complexity of not knowing which packages
contain the<br>
> trademark and which do not (inside the binary blob).<br>
><br>
> One problem I do acknowledge is the fact that the Jonathan
has brought<br>
> the issue up with the Community Council repeatedly while
not being<br>
> willing to consider the exact opinion you have just
offered, nor the<br>
> fact that the Community Council is not tasked with making
legal<br>
> statements with regard to specific language Canonical is
using.<br>
><br>
> I would urge anyone with a specific issue to reach out to
Canonical<br>
> Legal.<br>
><br>
> Charles<br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Ubuntu-community-team mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ubuntu-community-team@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-community-team@lists.ubuntu.com</a><br>
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team</a><br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Community and Forum Council's Member
Xubuntu QA Lead</pre>
</body>
</html>