[personal profile] mjg59
I've previously written about Canonical's obnoxious IP policy and how Mark Shuttleworth admits it's deliberately vague. After spending some time discussing specific examples with Canonical, I've been explicitly told that while Canonical will gladly give me a cost-free trademark license permitting me to redistribute unmodified Ubuntu binaries, they will not tell me what 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 actually means.

Why does this matter? The free software definition requires that you be able to redistribute software to other people in either unmodified or modified form without needing to ask for permission first. This makes it clear that Ubuntu itself isn't free software - distributing the individual binary packages without permission is forbidden, even if they wouldn't contain any infringing trademarks[1]. This is obnoxious, but not inherently toxic. The source packages for Ubuntu could still be free software, making it fairly straightforward to build a free software equivalent.

Unfortunately, while true in theory, this isn't true in practice. 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 - for instance, shipping the Ubuntu bootsplash as part of a modified product would almost certainly be clear trademark infringement, so you shouldn't do that. But 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. If this is what the policy means, it's so impractical to be able to rebuild Ubuntu that it's not free software in any meaningful way.

This seems like a pretty ludicrous interpretation, but it's one that Canonical refuse to explicitly rule out. Compare this to Red Hat's requirements around Fedora - if you replace the fedora-logos, fedora-release and fedora-release-notes packages with your own content, you're good. A policy like this satisfies the concerns that Dustin raised over people misrepresenting their products, but still makes it easy for users to distribute modified code to other users. There's nothing whatsoever stopping Canonical from adopting a similarly unambiguous policy.

Mark has repeatedly asserted that attempts to raise this issue are mere FUD, but he won't answer you if you ask him direct questions about this policy and will insist that it's necessary to protect Ubuntu's brand. The reality is that if Debian had had an identical policy in 2004, Ubuntu wouldn't exist. The effort required to strip all Debian trademarks from the source packages would have been immense[2], and this would have had to be repeated for every release. While this policy is in place, nobody's going to be able to take Ubuntu and build something better. It's grotesquely hypocritical, especially when the Ubuntu website still talks about their belief that people should be able to distribute modifications without licensing fees.

All that's required for Canonical to deal with this problem is to follow Fedora's lead and isolate their trademarks in a small set of packages, then tell users that those packages must be replaced if distributing a modified version of Ubuntu. If they're serious about this being a branding issue, they'll do it. And if I'm right that the policy is deliberately obfuscated so Canonical can encourage people to buy licenses, they won't. It's easy for them to prove me wrong, and I'll be delighted if they do. Let's see what happens.

[1] The policy is quite clear on this. If you want to distribute something other than an unmodified Ubuntu image, you have two choices:
  1. Gain approval or certification from Canonical
  2. Remove all trademarks and recompile the source code
Note that option 2 requires you to rebuild even if there are no trademarks to remove.

[2] Especially when every source package contains a directory called "debian"…

Would like some help picking those toys up?

Date: 2015-11-19 11:43 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Matthew, you asked if you could make and distribute a personal project on Ubuntu, and we gave you all the rights needed to do so, along with our best wishes for the project. We've done the same for HUNDREDS of other people and communities.

And this is your response?

Did you actually have such a project, or was that just a sham to try to trick us into saying something quotable? Are you actually keen to see something fun get done or just trying to be a spectacularly grumpy git?

Mark

Comparing to Fedora / Comparing to Red Hat

Date: 2015-11-20 12:09 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Here you've compared the Canonical/Ubuntu IP policy to that of Fedora, but wouldn't comparing Canonical/Ubuntu to Red Hat be more of an apples-to-apples comparison? I assume that the Fedora and Red Hat policies are different, at least in practice. AFAIK, Red Hat only supplies the SRPMS (which I don't even believe are digitally signed . . . you have no way of knowing that the SRPMS have not been tampered with), and that these SRPMs are only provided by way of the CentOS github account.

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

This may still be better than what Canonical is doing with Ubuntu, and I do not disagree with what you've written above. I think it's better to make the more level-set comparison of Canonical/Ubuntu to Red Hat vs. Canonical/Ubuntu to Fedora, though.

FWIW, I am a former Ubuntu contributor, and now occasional GNOME contributor / regular Fedora user.

Why are you confusing trademarks and copyrights?

Date: 2015-11-20 04:56 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
The free software definition is about copyrights not trademarks. You are free to fork the codebase and build your own distribution.

Debian force

Date: 2015-11-21 08:26 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
> The reality is that if Debian had had an identical policy in 2004, Ubuntu wouldn't exist.

I heard there are a few Ubuntu-haters in Debian. Can't some of them figure out some smart, GPL-like, viral trick where carrying the Debian trademark limits the conditions for any other trademark put "on top of" Debian?

Ub*ntu

Date: 2015-11-21 09:01 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Canonical does its Ub*ntu thing again!

RE

Date: 2015-11-21 10:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jr [launchpad.net]
Canonical can't add arbitrary restrictions just by virtue of saying they do, especially vaguely saying they have but won't say how. If so I could do the same and I'd get a lot more hugs than I do now http://jriddell.org/2015/09/02/jonathan-riddell-ip-policy/ A policy doesn't have any way of arbitrarily adding restrictions just because it's said in an authoritative language.

Nobody has a problem with trademarked branding needing to be removed but no court will consider an e-mail address to be branding. Remove the splash screen and a few other obvious uses and it's all good.

I do wish people would stop being bullied about by Canonical and imaging problems that could exist, I've never seen any restrictions which stand up to any serious scrutiny in making a derived distribution of Ubuntu. Everything in Ubuntu is licensed as free software very explicitly. It would take some equally explicit and well understood way of restricting it to have a valid problem. Otherwise it's just like believing in a god because someone in an authoritative tone of voice says you should without any evidence.

JRiddell

Overall agree, but

Date: 2015-11-23 02:22 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I don't see the "even cases which wouldn't be infringement" at all and the literal reading is more uncertain than you make out. But I agree overall, and it doesn't make it much better.

First, In the same document, it details acceptable uses of it's trademark. So, no, not "all trademarks." And that list is obviously not exhaustive, so I don't think it would be fair to assume that that policy or your quote are meant to cover obviously non trademark infringing cases. And your changelog example is arguably covered by that policy as an "article."

Secondly, beyond that limitation, you can literally read your quote in 2 ways. The other one is that the the amount of trademark removal needed is some undefined threshold of a distro having "association with the trademarks." By example of a similar quote: I own a 50 mile road, theres a store 5 miles in, at the start of the road I have a sign which says "To get to the store, you can pay me to give you a ride. Otherwise, you must walk the road" Your way of literal reading is "I have to walk 50 miles." No, a correct literal reading still uses the context that the walking is in order to get to the store 5 miles in, so it would be 5 miles not 50. Canonical's 2 sentences have the same structure, paraphrasing: "To redistribute modifications, if you associate with our trademark, pay us. Otherwise, you must remove trademarks." Removing trademarks is /how/ to not "associate it with their trademarks", not requirement to walk 50 miles.

Anyways, overall totally agree.

Two solutions

Date: 2015-11-23 02:46 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
1) Stop using Ubuntu. If everyone does this, the problem goes away.

2) Strip out the trademark usages that would truly be infringing. Release everything else as-is (don't recompile anything you don't have to to remove the trademarks). Sue Canonical to pre-emptively have your work declared non-infringing. Distribute to everyone.

Profile

Matthew Garrett

About Matthew

Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Google. Ex-biologist. @mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags