“Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical”

[tedivm]

So Canonical started abusing trademark law to silence critics, by claiming they could only use the name Ubuntu with permission and in specific contexts. Debian, being the distro of freedom, is preemptively removing the trademarked name in order to make it impossible for Canonical to do the same to them.

While it is extremely unlikely that Canonical ever would, the point stands that they've done this at least once to others. By taking this action Debian is protecting their users from what they perceive as an IP threat.

While it may seem a little silly, I am very glad they're doing this if only because it's drawing attention to how far Canonical has gone with some of their whacky and controlling decisions.

Context, for those who want it- http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...

[joeyh]

Just to be clear, Debian didn't do this, I did.

And only, so far in one package, which can be used to mirror Debian or various of its derivatives.

[a3n]

I guess it's getting time to move upstream. Which is fine, I've never given a dime to Canonical, they can do what they want. But it's too bad, they were one of the best things to happen to Linux.

[ilbe]

Thanks for the context. I used to use Ubuntu and found this feature to be nonsense. Who would come up with this idea? Let's make money by sending peoples searches to Amazon whenever they search for a file on their PC. Of course when I can't find my file, I'd love and expect the convenience to... get it on Amazon?!

[adrianmalacoda]

I take it the Debian derivative from Canonical that cannot be named is sort of like a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor[0] for the average user?

I'm curious if there's some sort of backstory to this.

[0] http://www.pnaelv.net/

[cconover]

Here's the backstory: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...

[stolio]

Canonical has been kind enough to not include the name "Debian" on their Debian derivative's front[0] or about[1] pages. It finally shows up in the about - about [short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical] page. [2]

Compare this to Crunchbang - another Debian derivative that many Ubuntu users have fled to - their homepage includes the word Debian 6 times.[3] On their about page a link to Debian using the proper "Debian GNU/Linux" name is their first order of business.[4] I'm a Debian user and I must say much respect to Crunchbang for making the effort.

[0] - http://www.ubuntu.com/

[1] - http://www.ubuntu.com/about/

[2] - http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu

[3] - http://www.crunchbang.com

[4] - http://crunchbang.org/about/

[davexunit]

Canonical doesn't even really mention the kernel Linux or the GNU project anymore.

[Flimm]

They do include Debian in their about page: http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu

Futhermore, you missed the "Ubuntu and Debian" page, which is only a two links away from the home page: http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/ubuntu-and-debian

[comice]

I'm no Canonical apologist, but they do have a "intellectual property" document and are quite clear about what they deem acceptable and what they don't.

They very specifically say you need permission in domains:

"You will require Canonical’s permission to use ... any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes."

http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy

[chrismonsanto]

Who gives a crap about what they deem acceptable. That's definitely non-enforceable in cases like "ubuntusucks.com"

[jamesbritt]

... what they deem acceptable and what they don't.

Isn't law what decides these things? Canonical may be full of hopes and dreams about how they prefer people to behave, but they don't make the laws.

[hyperion2010]

Except that policies like that are completely meaningless in the face of the law. They are like the rules you used to make up as a kid.

[Bill_Dimm]

I don't really see how Canonical can take away the right to use a trademark nominatively[1], as provided by law, just by declaring your rights to be gone in a policy.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

[bowlofpetunias]

I'm pretty radical when it comes to "intellectual property". As far as I'm concerned copyright and patents are both a matter of appropriating centuries of collective public property. Nobody invents anything from scratch.

But I don't see anything wrong with protecting a trademark, within reason.

[moocowduckquack]

any Trademark in a domain name or URL

Is obviously bollocks though as by that reading you couldn't have an article about Ubuntu with Ubuntu in the headline without permission if you used article headlines in your sites URLs like every online magazine ever does.

[strathmeyer]

I'm going to assume you get written permission from the NFL every time you use your DVR, have some friends over to watch the game, or talk about the game with your friends and coworkers.

[zx2c4]

From the commit:

  +  } elsif ($origin=~/^[U][b][u][n][t][u]$/ or $origin eq "Canonical") {

That made me laugh.

[joeyh]

clearly should have been just elsif ($origin=~ /^[UC][ba][nu][no][tn][ui]c?a?l?$/)

[Flimm]

This is definitely a horrible move from Canonical, but I imagine they are simply following their legal counsel. In general terms, you have to prosecute violators of your trademark if you want to keep your trademark (unlike copyright or patents).

In this case, they're probably making things worse for themselves overall, but I wish people would take the complexities of trademark law in account before accusing them of censorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights

[hdevalence]

Trademark law does not require you to harass people using your trademark to refer to your product.

I wish people would not try to justify corporate bullying based on a misunderstanding of trademark law.

Also: it's legal counsel, not legal council.

[davidp]

Yes. Debian has its own restrictions on one of its own logos. See the terms on their restricted use logo on their Logos page[1]; they reserve the right to assert copyright privilege in the same way.

[1]: http://www.debian.org/logos/

[natch]

Curious, if anyone knows: how exactly are the square brackets in this line helping do anything that wouldn't be accomplished without them?

  /^[U][b][u][n][t][u]$/

[natch]

Figured out the answer to my own question: it must be a silly/clever way to avoid having the literal string "Ubuntu" in the source.

[puller]

No context. Seems petty?

The issue was about the logo

[reidrac]

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/canoni...

Edit: formatting

[Karunamon]

Petty as all heck on the part of Canonical, I agree.

[mseepgood]

"The-Distro-That-Must-Not-Be-Named"

[ryanthejuggler]

Voldemort Linux?

[pfortuny]

May it be said that humanitytoothers is also unpronounceable?

Can I use it in my homepage?

The domain humanitytoothers.com is available! What does that mean?

[bronson]

Suggest you buy humanity-toothers.com too.

[lowlevel]

Speaking it's name only makes it more powerful.

[aroman]

Fear of the name increases fear of the thing itself.

[aspensmonster]

But I thought fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself?

edit: dammit. Beaten to it.

[mhubig]

Damn! Canonical just made another good point why 'the Debian derivative from Canonical' should not be used any more ...

[alextingle]

Well, it made me giggle.