
“Remove occurrences of the short name of the Debian derivative from Canonical” - zdw
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/debmirror.git;a=commitdiff;h=fcd972395b0201fcde4915d282982926f0d04c56;hp=7fcdf0d225c480b386c5a1f487e68dc39b57e771
======
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...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/11/canonical-abused-trademark-law-to-target-a-site-critical-
of-ubuntu-privacy/)

~~~
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.

~~~
abus
Isn't 'Canonical' a trademark? Couldn't you just refer to it as DerivativeOS4
and then have a central reference table?

~~~
Zikes
That reference table would have to contain Canonical or Ubuntu, though.

~~~
abus
It keeps the source cleaner though and it wouldn't have to.

DerivativeOS4 - Debian-based operating system released in 2004 by UK Company
No. 06870835.

------
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/](http://www.pnaelv.net/)

~~~
cconover
Here's the backstory: [http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/11/canoni...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/11/canonical-abused-trademark-law-to-target-a-site-critical-
of-ubuntu-privacy/)

~~~
adrianmalacoda
Thanks. I'm not a fan of the whole Unity Amazon integration deal myself, but I
think there's a clear difference between a site critical of Ubuntu using their
name in the domain _and_ their logo in the header image versus a passing
remark in documentation or code.

Mind you, I think the original case was a clear attempt at abuse of trademark
law against legitimate criticism. I do feel, however, that the distro-that-
can't-be-named remark sounds petty. If they want to avoid mentioning Ubuntu
they could just say something like "Debian derivatives."

~~~
marcosdumay
> there's a clear difference between a site critical of Ubuntu using their
> name in the domain and their logo in the header image versus a passing
> remark in documentation or code.

IANAL, but as far as I understand US law (it's crazy, but everybody needs to
learn it nowadays), the first use is explicitly permitted, while a passing
citation in documentation is a more nebulous issue.

~~~
Flimm
I'm very surprised by your statement. It would seem to me to be the opposite
way round. Surely a passing a citation is fine, it's using someone's trademark
in your branding (and a domain name and logo is arguably branding) that's the
nebulous issue? Could you point out to me where I could learn about US law
that would teach me this counter-intuitive reasoning?

------
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/](http://www.ubuntu.com/)

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

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

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

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

~~~
Flimm
They do include Debian in their about page:
[http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu](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](http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/ubuntu-and-debian)

~~~
stolio
ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu is literally link number two above, I realize
it's a bit obfuscated

The point I was making is how deeply the connection to Debian is buried on the
ubuntu.com site and contrasting it to Crunchbang's approach which is to give
back mindshare

As for your two links point, the fastest path I can find is 3:

/ \--> /about --> /about/about-ubuntu --> about/about-ubuntu/ubuntu-and-debian

3 clicks, each link with it's own level of prominence. It's safe to say the
Debian connection isn't featured for the average user. And I would imagine
well over half the website is available within 3 three clicks of the homepage,
I have half a mind to crawl it to find out...

EDIT: I looked again and I can't find the word "Debian" at
[http://www.ubuntu.com/about/](http://www.ubuntu.com/about/), so either my
search feature is broken or it's not there

~~~
Flimm
> The point I was making is how deeply the connection to Debian is buried on
> the ubuntu.com site and contrasting it to Crunchbang's approach which is to
> give back mindshare

I accept that point.

(TBH, I shouldn't have bothered with my previous comment, because it was just
pedantic).

In my mind, Ubuntu is competing (or at least trying to compete) with Google,
Microsoft and Apple. They can't afford to waste valuable front page space on
things that would only interest people like us. I think that's perfectly
understandable. They still have an Ubuntu and Debian page for those who care.
If sharing credit is important to you, than by all means go with something
like Crunchbang.

------
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](http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy)

~~~
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.

~~~
Flimm
You have to enforce your trademark to keep it. It's one of the crucial
differences between it and copyright or patents.

mikeash: good point.

~~~
mikeash
Yes, but enforcement is only required to keep it _when people are actually
violating it_. I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me that the "Fix Ubuntu" web
site falls clearly under nominative fair use of the trademark, which is when
you use a trademark to actually refer to the original product.

------
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 ($origin=~
/^[UC][ba][nu][no][tn][ui]c?a?l?$/)

~~~
frankohn
That's just wrong, they don't want to match "Cauntica" or something like
that... :-)

------
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](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.

~~~
Flimm
IANAL, but a domain name is more than just a reference to a product. ICANN
gives trademark holders additional privileges when it comes to domain names.

~~~
hdevalence
[http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/ip/](http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/ip/)

> Complaints regarding trademark infringement due to website content and
> domain names are outside of ICANN's scope and authority.

The only case where ICANN Has anything to say is in a case of domain
squatting, which this isn't: although Canonical has a trademark interest in
"Ubuntu", there's no violation since it's being used nominatively,and it's not
being used in bad faith. (Search for UDRP for more information on this
policy).

~~~
Flimm
In that case Canonical have really shot themselves in the foot :)

~~~
chris_wot
They do it so frequently I'm surprised they have any feet left!

------
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.

~~~
keithpeter
I suspect this may be an example of Mr Hess's sense of humour.

Which I appreciate by the way.

------
puller
No context. Seems petty?

The issue was about the logo

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

~~~
Flimm
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
It doesn't require you to threaten people who don't violate your trademark,
but they did anyway.

~~~
NateDad
Show me where in their message there were any threats.

~~~
sp332
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.

------
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.

~~~
alexvr
I propose that we refer to Ubuntu as Voldemort from now on.

------
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.

