Canonical has offered you a license that covers the trademarks contained in your product
For one specific project, as long as I don't exceed $10,000 in revenue, and which can't be extended to any downstream recipients. Since those terms are unacceptable, Canonical appear to reserve the right to sue me for copyright infringement if any of their trademarks are present in the packages that I distribute, even if the use of those trademarks is non-infringing.
Good luck finding somebody from Red Hat to confirm that
Page 4 of this document - if I replace the two packages mentioned and don't call it RHEL, I can redistribute it without needing to ask for permission. All I am asking for is for Canonical to make the same offer. Why is this so objectionable?
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at nvidia. Ex-biologist. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon and Bluesky.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Comparing to Fedora / Comparing to Red Hat
Date: 2015-11-24 03:46 am (UTC)For one specific project, as long as I don't exceed $10,000 in revenue, and which can't be extended to any downstream recipients. Since those terms are unacceptable, Canonical appear to reserve the right to sue me for copyright infringement if any of their trademarks are present in the packages that I distribute, even if the use of those trademarks is non-infringing.
Page 4 of this document - if I replace the two packages mentioned and don't call it RHEL, I can redistribute it without needing to ask for permission. All I am asking for is for Canonical to make the same offer. Why is this so objectionable?