Jonathan Riddell™ IP Policy

[bweinel]

I just read the following press release from Jonathan regarding his new intellectual property policy:

This is the Jonathan Riddell™ IP Policy. It applies to all Jonathan’s intellectual property in Ubuntu archives. Jonathan is one of the top 5 uploaders, usually the top 1 uploader, to Ubuntu compiling hundreds of packages in the Ubuntu archive. Further Jonathan reviews new and updated packages in the archive. Further Jonathan selects compiler defaults and settings for KDE and Qt and other packages in the Ubuntu archive. Further Jonathan builds and runs tests for Ubuntu packages in the archives. Further Jonathan Riddell™ is a trademark of Jonathan Riddell™in Scotland, Catalunya and other countries; a trademark which is included in all packages edited by Jonathan Riddell™. Further Jonathan is the author of numberous works in the Ubuntu archive. Further Jonathan is the main contributor to the selection of software in Kubuntu. Therefore Jonathan has IP in the Ubuntu archive possibly including but not limited to copyright, patents, trademarks, sales marks, geographical indicators, database rights, compilation copyright, designs, personality rights and plant breeders rights. To deal with, distribute, modify, look at or smell Jonathan’s IP you must comply with this policy.

Policy: give Jonathan a hug before using his IP.

If you want a licence for Jonathan’s IP besides this one you must contact Jonathan first and agree one in writing.

Nothing in this policy shall be taken to override or conflict with free software licences already put on relevant works.

I'm wondering if this includes 'virtual hugs' (...since travel to Catalunya at this time might be cost prohibitive.)

cheers,
bill

[GreyGeek]

Is Jonathan's clutch slipping?

[Feathers McGraw]

If you upload a source package to the Ubuntu build service, and it gets compiled for you, do you really own compilation rights?

[kubicle]

Is Jonathan's clutch slipping?

It's a parody of Canonical's IP policy, a policy which manages to be incoherent, ineffective and idiotic, all at the same time (sort of a trademark of Canonical in itself).

If you upload a source package to the Ubuntu build service, and it gets compiled for you, do you really own compilation rights?

There is no such thing as a "compilation right". Copyright sometimes extends to compilations of data or pre-existing works (often called "collective works"), but it does not extend to the process of compiling binaries from source code.

[Feathers McGraw]

Ha, thanks for that, I'm going to chalk it up to not having woken up properly

I had a quick look in the canoical policy and the closest thing I could find to "we have compilation rights" was this:

You can redistribute Ubuntu in its unmodified form, complete with the installer images and packages provided by Canonical (this includes the publication or launch of virtual machine images).
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. This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu. If you need us to approve, certify or provide modified versions for redistribution you will require a licence agreement from Canonical, for which you may be required to pay. For further information, please contact us (as set out below).

Seems reasonable, if annoying... it's basically the same thing as Mozilla do requiring modified Firefox to be rebranded.

[kubicle]

Seems reasonable, if annoying... it's basically the same thing as Mozilla do requiring modified Firefox to be rebranded.

Removing trademarks is a reasonable demand (of course trademarks only matter in commercial usage), but what the policy actually says is that you need to do two things (independent of each other):
1. replace trademarks
2. recompile source code to create your own binaries
It does not say you "need to recompile if necessary to remove the trademarks" or something similar, it bluntly says you need to recompile your own binaries, regardless of trademarks, and this in clear violation of the GPL (you cannot put that sort of restrictions on the distribution of binaries). This is why they had to add (after two years of stalling) the additional clause which negates this "This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu"

That's why the whole policy is more than a bit murky "as in incoherent", the GPL trumps Canonical's policy "as in inefficient", and looks bad for Canonical in the eyes of the free software community "as in idiotic".

[GreyGeek]

Ah, thanks for that clearification of Jonathan's post. Reading Canonical's policy I came to the same conclusion you outlined in your response to Feathers. It appears to me that such obfuscation would only be necessary if Canonical were planning additional legal moves to circumvent the GPL and/or further restrict how derivatives can base off of Ubuntu.

Regardless, as Ubuntu continues to drift in its own direction with regards to its GUI (Unity), its dm and its services manager won't basing off of Ubuntu get more difficult for Kubuntu developers? Especially if Ubuntu begins increasing its proprietary bits?

[bweinel]

...it bluntly says you need to recompile your own binaries, regardless of trademarks, and this in clear violation of the GPL (you cannot put that sort of restrictions on the distribution of binaries).

Agreed... I think that was Jonathan's original point.

cheers,
bill

[MoonRise]

Thought Jonathan was being funny right off!! Ha! Funny! Great sense of humor! IMO that is!