So Garret contacted Ubuntu for some unspecified project that he claimed he wanted to start. In reality, he was mining for quotes to misinterpret. Sad git.
Your comments in this thread read like you have a personal grudge against Matthew Garrett. Please keep it professional.
> So Garret contacted Ubuntu for some unspecified project that he claimed he wanted to start. In reality, he was mining for quotes to misinterpret. Sad git.
Trying to create some legal security around derivatives of Ubuntu, he asked for clarification in general, not about any particular project, but about any possible project started by anyone. The question is really quite clear: "What precisely does one need to change for Canonical to be comfortable that one isn't trying to pass it off as Ubuntu". Their answer was "we won't tell you".
It looks to me like you're trying to spin this somehow to make Matthew Garrett look bad, accusing him of spinning it to make Canonical look bad. While the whole exchange could have been handled better on both sides, I don't see how Matthew Garret is to blame for Canonical's unwillingness to clarify their IP policy.
We see this all the time in online communities and we see it again with all this "hatred" against the Ubuntu community.
Here is Mark Shuttleworth replying to Garret: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/38467.html?thread=1474883#cmt147...
So Garret contacted Ubuntu for some unspecified project that he claimed he wanted to start. In reality, he was mining for quotes to misinterpret. Sad git.