I believe that Canonical can force you to recompile. [My view may differ from the FSF here. For example, I read the GPLv2 as requiring the ability for users to make verbatim copies of source and users the ability to distribute their own binaries based on that source. However, I'm pretty sure that legally, a licensee is not required to allow users to distribute verbatim copies of their binary/object program. If true, they can impose restrictions on distributions of their binary programs.]
Once you have recompiled, that is your own binary distributable according to the GPLv2, for example. At which point Canonical can only force you to remove trademarks up to the enforceability of trademark law. Specifically they can only force you to remove trademarked words/logos/etc that can cause "brand confusion" (including endorsement, etc.).
Specifically, they can not force you to remove "ubuntu" from things that do not cause brand/product confusion. For example, if I am mocking Ubuntu, I can certainly use Ubuntu's trademarks and symbols in the parody. Trademark law is completely different than patent law where unknowing patent infringement is still patent infringement. At least in the US, I believe that "intent to cause confusion" is the standard for Trademark law --- this effectively means that it would be unactionable without an assertion of a Cease and Desist by Canonical unless the intent was obviously there to cause brand confusion.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Is it all that hard?
Date: 2015-07-24 08:53 pm (UTC)Once you have recompiled, that is your own binary distributable according to the GPLv2, for example. At which point Canonical can only force you to remove trademarks up to the enforceability of trademark law. Specifically they can only force you to remove trademarked words/logos/etc that can cause "brand confusion" (including endorsement, etc.).
Specifically, they can not force you to remove "ubuntu" from things that do not cause brand/product confusion. For example, if I am mocking Ubuntu, I can certainly use Ubuntu's trademarks and symbols in the parody. Trademark law is completely different than patent law where unknowing patent infringement is still patent infringement. At least in the US, I believe that "intent to cause confusion" is the standard for Trademark law --- this effectively means that it would be unactionable without an assertion of a Cease and Desist by Canonical unless the intent was obviously there to cause brand confusion.