Canonical and derivative work, Jonathan Riddell spoke.

[Teunis]

Slashdot just posted a story about the rumours Canonical wants to licence derivatives of Ubuntu.
Interesting is it includes a link to a blog from Jonathan Riddell of Kubuntu who categorically denies any licensing is required.

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/14/0...te-derivatives

Without being a lawyer I tend to agree with Johnathan with one or two exception, the use of the Ubuntu servers and logos.

[Feathers McGraw]

Next stop: "you can have a licence, but only if you use Mir".

[GreyGeek]

Riddell is right. Not only that, if Canonical insisted on "Licensing" GPL software then this clause in the GPL applies:

8. Termination.

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

Attempting to force re-licensing of GPLv2 software under a different license put Canonical at risk of losing its rights to re-distribute GPL software, which is why I think this whole issue is a tempest in a tea pot, IOW, FUD. Whose originated it is another question, and why Canonical's "Council" doesn't squash this rumor quickly and permenantly by citing the terms of the GPL is another question. I guess even small corporations move like molasses and with confusion. GPLv3's primary purpose is to prevent "Tivolization" and other attempts to block changes in software or extort licence fees.

[Feathers McGraw]

That reminds me of something I read recently, about GPL licenced software being unavailable on iTunes, because iTunes comes with additional terms and conditions, which are forbidden under the GPL:

https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/

Feathers

[SteveRiley]

That Community Council statement is one big pile of word salad. 560 words to say nothing! And much of the commentary I've read seems to misunderstand the differences between trademarks and copyrights.

[SteveRiley]

The discussion on LWN.net is pretty good: http://lwn.net/Articles/586446/

I especially like Jonathan Riddell's answer when someone asked why Canonical is being so vague. He wrote:

> Do you have any idea why they're being so vague about what this supposed licensing is for?

Because no licence is needed under any considered interpretation of copyright law but they can get away with FUD from vague claims so people who don't have the time to consider it are left unsure.

This should chill you to the bone. If Jonathan is correct, Canonical is willfully exploiting people's confusion around copyright law.

[Snowhog]

Caveat Emptor - "Let the buyer beware"

The phrase caveat emptor arises from the fact that buyers often have less information about the good or service they are purchasing, while the seller has more information.

While what Canonical is doing may not rise to the level of being illegal, it is certainly deceptive.

[GreyGeek]

That reminds me of something I read recently, about GPL licenced software being unavailable on iTunes, because iTunes comes with additional terms and conditions, which are forbidden under the GPL:

https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/

Feathers

FSG sums it up nicely!

If you cannot modify the software that you use, then that program can be designed to serve someone else's interests over yours. It's unsurprising that Apple would put its users in this predicament; they've made no secret of the fact that they intend to control what people do on their products with an iron fist. Whether they stop you from doing certain tasks by banning VoIP apps, or limit people's speech by selectively blocking political commentary, Apple sees to it that App Store apps serve Apple's interests first, Apple's business partners' interests second, and yours a distant third.


We have a different idea. We believe that people should be allowed to use their computers however they like, whether the devices are shaped like laptops, cell phones, or tablets. The GPL was designed to ensure that everyone has that right, and the free software community has been writing software for twenty-five years now to make those rights a practical reality.

It is not suprising that Apple would refuse to give keys for the locks that chain slaves to their products, so that the slaves could be free.

[Feathers McGraw]

Exactly. Either Canonical are starting to behave like that too, or they're really bad at PR... lol.

[SteveRiley]

Exactly. Either Canonical are starting to behave like that too, or and they're really bad at PR... lol.

Fixed that for ya

[Feathers McGraw]

Hehe. It's encouraging how much outrage there is whenever they cross the line, though. It's the only thing that will make sure that they don't stray too far.

I guess what's good for users is almost always at odds with what you have to do to make money!

[GreyGeek]

The discussion on LWN.net is pretty good: http://lwn.net/Articles/586446/

I especially like Jonathan Riddell's answer when someone asked why Canonical is being so vague. He wrote:

This should chill you to the bone. If Jonathan is correct, Canonical is willfully exploiting people's confusion around copyright law.

IMO, Steve, it is worse than that. Here is Ubuntu's "Intellectual Property Rights Statement" URL: http://www.canonical.com/intellectua...-rights-policy

It includes such outrageous demands as:

2. Your use of Ubuntu

• You can download, install and receive updates to Ubuntu for free.
  Ubuntu is freely available to all users for personal, or in the case of organisations, internal use. It is provided for this use without warranty. All implied warranties are disclaimed to the fullest extent permitted at law.
• You can modify Ubuntu for personal or internal use.
  You can make changes to Ubuntu for your own personal use or for your organisation’s own internal use.
• You can redistribute Ubuntu, but only where there has been no modification to it.

So, if you modify Ubuntu Canonical is claiming that you cannot redistribute it without Canonical's license to do so, which I suspect would include the exchange of $$$.

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.

What are Canonical's trademarks?

3. Your use of our trademarks

Canonical’s Trademarks (registered in word and logo form) include:

UBUNTU	KUBUNTU	EDUBUNTU
XUBUNTU	JUJU	LANDSCAPE

• You can use the Trademarks, in accordance with Canonical’s brand guidelines, with Canonical’s permission in writing. If you require a Trademark licence, please contact us (as set out below).
• You will require Canonical’s permission to use: (i) any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU which is sufficiently similar to the Trademarks or any other confusingly similar mark, and (ii) any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes.
• You cannot use the Trademarks in software titles. If you are producing software for use with or on Ubuntu you may reference Ubuntu, but must avoid: (i) any implication of endorsement, or (ii) any attempt to unfairly or confusingly capitalise on the goodwill of Canonical or Ubuntu.
• You can use the Trademarks in discussion, commentary, criticism or parody, provided that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical.

It's patented material is only vaguely referenced:

Patents

Canonical has made a significant investment in the Open Invention Network, defending Linux, for the benefit of the open source ecosystem. Additionally, like many open source projects, Canonical also protects its interests from third parties by registering patents. You cannot use Canonical’s patented materials without our permission.

Trade dress and look and feel

Canonical owns intellectual property rights in the trade dress and look and feel of Ubuntu (including the Unity interface), along with various themes and components that may include unregistered design rights, registered design rights and design patents, your use of Ubuntu is subject to these rights.

What is the Open Invention Network?

Open Invention Network® is refining the intellectual property model so that important patents are openly shared in a collaborative environment. Patents owned by Open Invention Network® are available royalty-free to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux System. This enables companies to make significant corporate and capital expenditure investments in Linux — helping to fuel economic growth.

So, is killing the GPL how one "defends" it?

It is time Canonical specifically identify exactly what files in Ubuntu it considers an expression of its trademark, AND, which files it has a patent on. Otherwise, there is little in the statement or attitude that distinguishes them from Apple or Microsoft.

[SteveRiley]

It's the only thing that will make sure that [Canonical] don't stray too far.

Some would think they already have.

[SteveRiley]

It is time Canonical specifically identify exactly what files in Ubuntu it considers an expression of its trademark, AND, which files it has a patent on. Otherwise, there is little in the statement or attitude that distinguishes them from Apple or Microsoft.

Indeed. The interwebz are aflurry with speculative chatter about all this -- people are fscking confused. Canonical has got to clearly define what they actually claim copyright on; silly stuff like "Ubuntu packages and binary files are in many cases copyright of Canonical" just won't fly.

[Feathers McGraw]

Well researched, Greygeek!

This goes back to what Snowhog was saying: they're being deliberately deceptive.

They can claim that what they said just means you can't modify and redistribute Ubuntu and still call it Ubuntu, but really they're just trying to put people off altogether.

Feathers