No I am not. First, the example I'm replying to was not necessarily about modification, but even then the key element is "if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks"
It is the association with the trademarks I was mentioning. The policy is quite open in that aspect, as I quoted. So it is certainly not a given fact that you would have to remove all references to Ubuntu from all source code that exists. Presenting that as fact is simply untrue.
And as to the FUD element: next to what I object above: nowhere, but really nowhere, is stated you have to recompile ALL packages. It is just a worst case personal interpretation to make the post more sensational.
I don't like Canonical for all the things they do either, but you have to remain objective on how things are presented. Fact is that there was not a problem with ZFS until Canonical adopted it.
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: Sad
Date: 2016-02-21 09:58 am (UTC)It is the association with the trademarks I was mentioning. The policy is quite open in that aspect, as I quoted. So it is certainly not a given fact that you would have to remove all references to Ubuntu from all source code that exists. Presenting that as fact is simply untrue.
And as to the FUD element: next to what I object above: nowhere, but really nowhere, is stated you have to recompile ALL packages. It is just a worst case personal interpretation to make the post more sensational.
I don't like Canonical for all the things they do either, but you have to remain objective on how things are presented. Fact is that there was not a problem with ZFS until Canonical adopted it.