Conversation:
Notices
-
@verius By calling something after the original source, they are not misrepresenting the origin of the software. And even if they are, it is not permitted to use trademarks to restrict the ability of people to modify the software for any reason, including commercial distribution. I agree that non-onerous trademark compliance requests are reasonable, but I do not t…
-
"Canonical Sues Cloud Provider Over 'Unofficial' Ubuntu Images"
In case you thought there wasn't a reason it was Canonical that Microsoft got chummy with. They have a lot in common.
-
@verius If they don't respect the Four Freedoms, then they aren't a proponent of free software.
-
@verius They cover software that is presuming to call itself free software.
-
@verius "Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free."
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
-
@verius As they state on that page, if it is not onerous to remove trademarks then it is not unreasonable to ask for them to be removed. However, that requires them to be easily removed. Ubuntu as a distribution has hundreds of packages, expecting the branding to be removed from every single one that had it would, in my non-legal opinion, constitute an unreasonabl…
-
@verius Well if you want to be the one to remove every branding image, piece of text, and code that contains a reference to Ubuntu from the distribution, be my guest. I don't think it's a reasonable request.
-
@verius Maybe you should go reread the Four Freedoms again. If your ability to modify the software is restricted, then the software is nonfree
-
@verius Moreover, the certification process Ubuntu proposes here would here in Canada at least be considered an unlawful obstruction for any software that is GPL.
maiyannah
All Hacker Poesy content and data are available under the