
Free software that is impractical to redistribute, isn't (Canonical IP policy) - csirac2
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/38467.html
======
csirac2
From [1]:

"Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified
or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks.
Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to
recompile the source code to create your own binaries."

So now I don't understand why anyone bothers building Ubuntu-derived docker
images... perhaps that's the intent?

[1] [http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-
policies/intellectual-...](http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-
policies/intellectual-property-policy)

~~~
nickstinemates
Basically, you cannot distribute a modified ubuntu and call it ubuntu. Makes
sense from a trademark perspective.

As an aside: Early on, we ran afoul of this for the official image on Docker
Hub and the folks at Canonical were pretty professional in helping us get back
on track. Great experience all around.

~~~
simoncion
> Basically, you cannot distribute a modified ubuntu and call it ubuntu. Makes
> sense from a trademark perspective.

This _might_ be the policy. The fact that the policy is -from a legal
standpoint- at odds with what people informally claim that the policy says is
the matter at issue. From the article:

'The issue here is the apparently simple phrase "you must remove and replace
the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code". "Trademarks" is
defined later as being the words "Ubuntu", "Kubuntu", "Juju", "Landscape",
"Edubuntu" and "Xubuntu" in either textual or logo form. ... The naive
interpretation of this is that you have to remove trademarks where they'd be
infringing ... [b]ut that's not what the policy actually says. It insists that
all trademarks be removed, whether they would embody an infringement or not.
If a README says "To build this software under Ubuntu, install the following
packages", a literal reading of Canonical's policy would require you to remove
or replace the word "Ubuntu" even though failing to do so wouldn't be a
trademark infringement. If an @ubuntu.com email address is present in a
changelog, you'd have to change it. You wouldn't be able to ship the juju-core
package without renaming it and the application within. ...

This seems like a pretty ludicrous interpretation, but it's one that Canonical
refuse to explicitly rule out.'

MJG -and others- have _repeatedly_ asked Ubuntu representatives for _official_
, binding clarification regarding Canonical's IP policy. Their requests either
are ignored, they are pointed to a _non-binding_ , _informal_ blog post
written by a community manager (rather than a Canonical lawyer), or they are
met with a promise to follow up that goes inevitably unfulfilled.

Edit: Here is an interesting comment thread that -might be- related to my
point:
[http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/38467.html?thread=1474883#cmt147...](http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/38467.html?thread=1474883#cmt1474883)
(assuming that the anon is _actually_ a Canonical employee, rather than a
troll who's out to muddy the issue).

