You're quoting the wrong part of the policy. Here: "You can redistribute Ubuntu, but only where there has been no modification to it."; "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."

Also see FSF's analysis of the current policy:
https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms

In particular: "the policy remains problematic in ways that prevent us from endorsing it as a model for others" ... "While this change handles the situation for works covered by the GPL, it does not help works covered by lax permissive licenses (such as the X11 license) that do allow such additional restrictions."

I'm sorry, but the only kind of FUD and personal attacks I see in this discussion is the one carried out by Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth against Matthew. It can hardly be more obvious than in Mark's response linked from the post above:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-November/002179.html

I can only admire Matthew's ability to continue to say nice things about Ubuntu and Canonical after his constructive proposal was answered with a vicious character assassination piece that Matthew has mildly called "flat refusal". I wonder if I were able to remain so polite if I had to face such open hostility.