And you got this information from where and you are who again? I'm sorry, but the last Michael Hall I heard of acted in movies. That's fine if that's you, I just want to know from what authority you're speaking from.
ETA: it occurs to me just now that what you said does not make any sense. If Canonical misrepresented who the authors were then is it not their job to fix that? Why would it ever be ours?
It is not a completely unfounded concern, either, unless someone in the official capacity to say so says it is. Which is Mathew's entire (and only) point.
If you read through the archives here (or are already familiar with the problem, whichever) you already know the vague wording steps not just on trademark law but also right across the face of copyright law, as well. Trademark law says, for instance, no Ubuntu-branded splash screens. Copyright law says "no part of my work which I declare you cannot use, in whole or in part, without my express permission". Copyright law, even as it applies to Fair Use (discussed fleetingly below) is even more vague than trademark law, so there's a can of worms for you.
My only thought - a loophole, a possible way around the copyright snafu that Canonical's wording represents - is if Fair Use might apply, but as Fair Use is mostly a quote-based law (you can quote a small portion of my work, certainly not a lot and definitely not the whole damn thing) chances are probably not.
And that is just another reason further clarification is needed.
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: Comparing to Fedora / Comparing to Red Hat
Date: 2015-11-21 03:29 am (UTC)ETA: it occurs to me just now that what you said does not make any sense. If Canonical misrepresented who the authors were then is it not their job to fix that? Why would it ever be ours?
It is not a completely unfounded concern, either, unless someone in the official capacity to say so says it is. Which is Mathew's entire (and only) point.
If you read through the archives here (or are already familiar with the problem, whichever) you already know the vague wording steps not just on trademark law but also right across the face of copyright law, as well. Trademark law says, for instance, no Ubuntu-branded splash screens. Copyright law says "no part of my work which I declare you cannot use, in whole or in part, without my express permission". Copyright law, even as it applies to Fair Use (discussed fleetingly below) is even more vague than trademark law, so there's a can of worms for you.
My only thought - a loophole, a possible way around the copyright snafu that Canonical's wording represents - is if Fair Use might apply, but as Fair Use is mostly a quote-based law (you can quote a small portion of my work, certainly not a lot and definitely not the whole damn thing) chances are probably not.
And that is just another reason further clarification is needed.