5 ms·

No context. Seems petty? The issue was about the logo

• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• Karunamon 13y ago
  Petty as all heck on the part of Canonical, I agree.
  • Flimm 13y ago
    It doesn't matter, trademark law requires you to pro-actively prosecute violators if you want to keep your trademark. Although I still wish Canonical was more transparent about who gets to use its trademarks and who doesn't: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/394328 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/394328 sp332: You're right, although it's not clear to me that this definitely is not a violation. I hope it isn't for the sake of free speech.
    • sp332 13y ago
      It doesn't require you to threaten people who don't violate your trademark, but they did anyway.
      • NateDad 13y ago
        Show me where in their message there were any threats.
        • tedunangst 13y ago
          How fun. It doesn't require you to send requests to people who don't violate your trademark, but they did anyway.
        • sp332 13y ago
          It was very polite, and props to them for that. But that doesn't mean there were no threats. to use the Ubuntu trademarks and Ubuntu word in a domain name would require approval from Canonical... Unfortunately, in this instance we cannot give you permission to use Ubuntu trademarks... This has a big "OR ELSE" implicit in it. Requiring means enforcing.
• reidrac 13y ago
  Read the letter published by Ars[1], they refer not only to the logo but to the "Ubuntu word" (trademark of Canonical) and "to use the Ubuntu trademarks and Ubuntu word in a domain name would require approval from Canonical". [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canonical-abused-trademark-law-to-target-a-site-critical-of-ubuntu-privacy/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni... Edit: formatting