Can someone explain why it is not possible to simply ignore Canonical's aberrant behaviour and carry on as before? They aren't a court nor do they have any law enforcement powers, it's just a company expressing a preference.
Canonical: "We require that you remove all trademarks entirely even if using them wouldn't be a violation of trademark law."
The rest of the planet: "Go pound sand."
Isn't this a more logical response than submitting to their request? Are developers concerned that Canonical will haul them into court for an expensive legal battle, regardless of who is right? This can happen I suppose, but I am not seeing the down side to ignoring their demands.
It is more logical and an entirely proper response to ignore them.
But this is pointing out that Ubuntu would be hurt if developers took them seriously. Especially as they rely on others code that has Ubuntu-tailored functionality. So Ubuntu can only hope that we don't start to take them seriously.
Canonical is attempting to use copyright law to enforce its trademark policy, at least according to mjg59. If you only work with upstream sources, that isn't a problem, but redistributing binaries is an important use case, especially with Docker.
> Canonical assert that the act of compilation creates copyright over the binaries, and you may not redistribute those binaries unless (a) the license prevents Canonical from restricting redistribution (eg, the GPL), or (b) you follow the terms of their IP policy. This means that, no matter what Dustin's blogpost says, Canonical's position is that you must ask for permission before distributing any custom container images that contain Ubuntu binaries, even if you use no Ubuntu trademarks in the process. Doing so without their permission is an infringement of their copyright.
Canonical asserting that the act of compilation creates copyright over the binaries doesn't make that statement true, and IANAL but I don't think there's sufficient evidence that it's likely to be true either - it's not a derived work - it is the work, so the same license as applies to the work would apply.
What you're saying makes perfect sense, but law is weird. I would probably talk to a lawyer before assuming that something technically obvious is actually interpreted correctly by existing law.
Sure, if we were all flush companies then filing suit over things like this or risking lawsuits when we know we are correct would be perfectly reasonable. But when you don't have the money or time to fight legal battle -- even one you think you should win -- you have to appeal to the court of public opinion instead.
Compilation copyrights exist and are very light copyrights.
The viability of their claim i sadly can't talk about[1], but i can tell you what it would actually protect is very small. It's basically only what they add to it (and they must add something to have a valid compilation copyright). To quote the copyright act:
"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."
So yeah.
[1] Sorry. Once legal things that have an impact on the company i work for reach a certain point, I can no longer safely discuss them. I can tell you what the copyright act says, which is:
A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.
I'll let others be the judge of whether what they do by compiling things into binaries meets the minimum standards to create an original work of authorship.
Would it help if the distribution was all in compiling tools and the source code and some scripts that will build the tools upon download on the recipient's end?
I'm not sure the legal rules around "compilation" (collections of poems) can be applied to a totally different issue, compilation of software from source to binary with a standard process. They don't have much in common except for the word.
What if they use a custom process so that the binary with the standard process will be a "little" bit different?
Actually both used the same source, but a different set of tooling, maybe even a special plugin for clang to get ubuntu.com somewhere into the binary file. is the binary still copyright fee or isn't it? actually what if it is gpl, does gpl also mean, that the compiler needs to be gpl? what if the compiler adds something, i.e. a ubuntu trademark?
I mean i could even sell the binary. i just need to give the source since gpl only applies to the source level, the question about the packaged file is actually left out and I don't think I could resell it without recompilation if somebody copyrights 'his' binary.
As my first lawyer explained to me, the important question isn't whether you are in the right and will eventually win the lawsuit. It's whether you can afford to go the distance.
Lawsuits are painful, expensive, and enormously stress-inducing. And if you can't afford to fight one, then you get all that plus a loss.
If you'd like developers to feel bold about this, one way to encourage that would be to put together a legal defense fund with deep enough pockets that developers aren't too worried. Because from the individual developer perspective, there's a big difference between the rest of the planet telling Canonical no and it just being them on their own.
I rather believe that OP is attempting to exclude Ubuntu by mimicking the same knee-jerk reactions they have. I see this totally positively, since Ubuntu's behavior prevents the easy reuse of the OSS they write. Next step is to make upstream difficult to merge with Ubuntu ;)
What does Linux Mint do, especially given its modest popularity? I don't know about code but their website lists "Based on Debian and Ubuntu" as a "reason for succuss".
>You will require Canonical’s permission to use: (i) any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU which is sufficiently similar to the Trademarks or any other confusingly similar mark, and (ii) any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes
That sounds like it covers *buntu too, unfortunately
voldemort=$(echo Ubxntx | sed 's/x/u/g')
...
case $voldemort)
and not have an issue. Their trademark exists in computer memory, but not in code at that point.
I think if the compiler optimizes that out to not have string replacing (not valid for bash, but for other compiled languages), that makes it more interesting since if they're claiming the compiled unit is of issue, well, that unit now might have the string "Ubuntu" in it depending entirely on optimization.
It means that somebody who is angry about Ubuntu for some reason says that you can't use the word Ubuntu in your programs to test whether they are running on Ubuntu, or Canonical will sue you. There is no real evidence that this is the case.
I expect that tomorrow I will hear that Canonical will sue me if I publicly say Ubuntu.
if you are interested in software freedom and think Ubuntu has a problem, then please explain how this redhat export control policy fits into your world:
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/exportcontrol.html
I think almost all non-lawyers want to export to Cuba. The problem is that until the US government stops the embargo, US-based companies are often loathe to contract with companies that offer services to Cuba.
"I start wondering ..." announces another incoming bundle of FUD absent any confirmation from Ubuntu. Claims about the legal position of Ubuntu are flying around that are completely unsubstantiated. If we are going to publicly bury Ubuntu, let's not do it on the basis of fevered suppositions, let's have it from their own mouth.
28 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 69.4 ms ] threadCanonical: "We require that you remove all trademarks entirely even if using them wouldn't be a violation of trademark law."
The rest of the planet: "Go pound sand."
Isn't this a more logical response than submitting to their request? Are developers concerned that Canonical will haul them into court for an expensive legal battle, regardless of who is right? This can happen I suppose, but I am not seeing the down side to ignoring their demands.
But this is pointing out that Ubuntu would be hurt if developers took them seriously. Especially as they rely on others code that has Ubuntu-tailored functionality. So Ubuntu can only hope that we don't start to take them seriously.
> Canonical assert that the act of compilation creates copyright over the binaries, and you may not redistribute those binaries unless (a) the license prevents Canonical from restricting redistribution (eg, the GPL), or (b) you follow the terms of their IP policy. This means that, no matter what Dustin's blogpost says, Canonical's position is that you must ask for permission before distributing any custom container images that contain Ubuntu binaries, even if you use no Ubuntu trademarks in the process. Doing so without their permission is an infringement of their copyright.
https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/37113.html
Sure, if we were all flush companies then filing suit over things like this or risking lawsuits when we know we are correct would be perfectly reasonable. But when you don't have the money or time to fight legal battle -- even one you think you should win -- you have to appeal to the court of public opinion instead.
"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."
So yeah.
[1] Sorry. Once legal things that have an impact on the company i work for reach a certain point, I can no longer safely discuss them. I can tell you what the copyright act says, which is:
A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.
I'll let others be the judge of whether what they do by compiling things into binaries meets the minimum standards to create an original work of authorship.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11047390
Lawsuits are painful, expensive, and enormously stress-inducing. And if you can't afford to fight one, then you get all that plus a loss.
If you'd like developers to feel bold about this, one way to encourage that would be to put together a legal defense fund with deep enough pockets that developers aren't too worried. Because from the individual developer perspective, there's a big difference between the rest of the planet telling Canonical no and it just being them on their own.
>You will require Canonical’s permission to use: (i) any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU which is sufficiently similar to the Trademarks or any other confusingly similar mark, and (ii) any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes
That sounds like it covers *buntu too, unfortunately
Sounds like "buntish" is the best option then, or something like that.
I think if the compiler optimizes that out to not have string replacing (not valid for bash, but for other compiled languages), that makes it more interesting since if they're claiming the compiled unit is of issue, well, that unit now might have the string "Ubuntu" in it depending entirely on optimization.
I expect that tomorrow I will hear that Canonical will sue me if I publicly say Ubuntu.