Slashdot Mirror
Canonical Targets Ubuntu Privacy Critic
New submitter bkerensa writes "A member of Canonical's Legal Team recently sent a email to a critic of Ubuntu's privacy settings to insist he stop using the Ubuntu name and logo, even though it falls under 'fair use.' Micah Lee is the CTO of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and maintainer of the HTTPS Everywhere project. When Ubuntu began adding commercial results in its Dash search software, Lee wrote about the privacy concerns and created a site called Fix Ubuntu to show people how to turn it off. Canonical's legal department has now sent him a letter asking him to 'remove [the] Ubuntu word from you[r] domain name and Ubuntu logo from your website.'"
....but what would you expect???
..then there is something more serious broken in your decision making that command can fix. There are far better distros out there, no matter what you're looking for.
ueviltoo
They've long since abandoned the values of the FOSS community... if they ever had them.
https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trademark-law-to-silence-critics-of-its-privacy-decisions/
Ubuntu just lost a lot of street cred. Not only is the response appropriate (remove the logo, nothing else), attacking a site dedicated to fixing your product via legal means is not the way to get the Open Source community on your side. When your main product is based on Open Source, that's kind of like shooting yourself in the leg and wondering why the gun is making you bleed out.
Fair use... of a trademark? Someone is confused. I think you'll find fair use is a copyright concept, not applicable to trademarks.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
They can ask him to change the domain name and remove the logo, and it could be argued that they're just doing basic trademark defence, but they ought to know that he's under no obligation to make the changes. Of course, they ought to have known about and also considered the Streisand effect.
At least they were polite and not bumptious, censorious douche nozzles about it.
please quit using Linux and GNU licensed software because you people are a pariah to the entire FOSS community, you are like a rotten apple in a barrel of good apples, you need to be removed from the barrel and develop your own software independent from GNU/Linux, nobody loves you anymore so please go away
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
wait, couldnt a counter arguement be that Ubuntu doesnt protect its rights to this name due to all the other *ubuntu stuff. They cant pick and choose.
TFA does not mention threats being made ... so if all they're really doing is "asking", what is the problem?
Let them ask, and just answer "no"?
I see no story here until threats are made.
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
That's it, I'm done with Ubuntu. Debian anyone?
Now just another Lindows
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
No, not really "dickish"?
Aren't they obligated (by law) to protect their trademark, or risk loosing it?
IANAL but as I recall it, you can only keep a trademark if you actively protect it. If you don't, you may loose your right to keep it.
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
Google it.
As long as he's using Ubuntu to refer to Ubuntu, he's good.
You need to learn to play lawyer better.
...calling this fair use. Google your legal jargon before making an a** of yourself, chucklehead. ...the seemingly mathematically certain linux fanboy responses. These come in the form of an invariable insistence upon uprooting your entire work/play environment to switch to a different distro which will be chock full of its own warts (this is the voice of experience speaking). This being, by fanboy logic, the only reasonable solution to any problem. I wonder if anyone has submitted a proof on this yet? I've been working intimately with FOSS for almost fifteen years and this sort of 'solution' has always come across as boneheaded. Unfortunately, it always comes across, too. ...deriding a company for trying to find a way to feed their employees and their employees' families. We all know that Ubuntu has been unprofitable to date. If your only contribution to the larger discussion is to throw grenades and run then you're a very real detriment to the FOSS community. ...deriding a company for the occasional affront without acknowledging their contributions. Ubuntu has contributed significantly to the visibility of linux-based solutions through both marketing and refinement of the UI (it's not to my liking but they're trying hard, at least, to find some common ground).
Silly is you.
Are you ready for a riddle for the ages? If Linux is open source and Ubuntu is open source then why can't a volunteer coder just remove that stupid crapware feature? (scroll down for answer)
Because it's not open source anymore. It's corporate garbage.
I saw the writing on the wall and quit using Ubuntu some time ago.
I used Ubuntu but things started to make me uneasy.
I didn't like ware it was going so I dumped it.
Just a sell out or worse a commercial endeavor hiding under the guise of of an open source project just leaching off the open source community and its users for profit.
The world has become a bunch of voyeurs leaching on everyone's personal information and monetizing it for profit.
Large companies love to abuse their trademark and copyright protections to silence critics. It's unfortunate that there aren't SLAPP laws in every state. Angie's List was particularly scummy in that they threatened to come after me for reposting a review on a noncommercial blog so I could refute it outside of Angie's List. "Our reviews are copyrighted by us and we will sue the fuck out of you." That's how it works, and what's a small fry to do about it? In America, the person with the most money always wins, even if they ARE total assholes who are wrong in the eyes of the law.
Maybe you didn't see the letter from the EFF's lawyer to Canonical yet because you didn't RTFA:
https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trademark-law-to-silence-critics-of-its-privacy-decisions/
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, specifically in the legal aspect. This is a prime example of fair use.
When it comes to writing about Ubuntu (and Canonical) bkerensa may be a new submitter to Slashdot, but is an established writer in the area.
Change distros. Vote with your feet.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So Canonical's reputation is going down the tubes, and their distro is showing some privacy invading warts. What they don't seem to realise is that they have no lock-in that prevents people from dropping them like a bad habit as their versions go out of support. There is ample room for a second contender to pull out in front with the next "easy to use" distro - who's it going to be?
I have never been able to stand running Ubuntu for more than a few minutes to begin with.
Now it's gone from technically awful to actively evil, it would be nice to be able to switch away as a statement, but that would require actually using it to start with.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Wouldn't redhat do the same thing? maybe we should spread the frustrations around instead of hatin' on whats hip
In the bottom-right corner of the above mentioned website, I noticed what might be a very recent addition:
Disclaimer: In case you are either 1) a complete idiot; or 2) a lawyer; or 3) both, please be aware that this site is not affiliated with or approved by Canonical Limited. This site criticizes Canonical for certain privacy-invading features of Ubuntu and teaches users how to fix them. So, obviously, the site is not approved by Canonical. And our use of the trademarked term Ubuntu is plainly descriptive - it helps the public find this site and understand its message.
Ubuntu is for dumbshits anyway. Use a real distro.
So now Ubuntu's lawyers don't read their own legal policy http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy . I looked into it when I wrote a blog post about Canonical going bankrupt eventually.
Note:
"You can use the Trademarks in discussion, commentary, criticism or parody, provided that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical."
So not only is it fair use it also is ok under their own intellectual trademark policy.. Talk about one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
He currently calls his site "fix ubuntu".
If he renamed it to "fixubuntu" and changed the heading at the top of his page, i.e. no space, Rather than referencing the existing entity, it creates a new entity.
This would be similar to the difference between "Microsoft Windows" and "xwindows" or the difference between "DOS" and "IOS".
http://www.ehow.com/how_8363335_business-name-exists.html
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/index.jsp#heading-3
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=fixubuntu&d=PG01
http://gpsn.uspto.gov/#/search/q=fixubuntu&sort=score%20desc
http://www.start.biz/smarta/search_results.php?name=fixubuntu
Aaaand that's it; I'm moving to Mint.
May the Maths Be with you!
Huh? But why, I'm just expressing that I'm supporting human kindness and using the term that way. It has nothing to do with any operating system. I do not think it's my fault that you called your OS thusly. Despite having really nothing to do with the original meaning of the word, I'd say...
Else I'd consider asking the Roman Catholic Church on what they think about you using the term "canonical".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...learn to use it.
You idiot.
Of all the things that is Ubuntu, Multi USB to VGA Monitors would be nice. Legal public identification trade marks being displayed an issue? Really? I think someone at Ubuntu has to much free time on their hands.
Fix-Butt-Head-Astronomer.com
In those "best linux distros" I just discovered Qubes OS which achieves security (and privacy) through strong isolation.
See what kind of activities can be isolated, in a picture.
I think they got it right.
Not very portable: one need to run it on bare metal (along with 4GB minimum), nomads will bring along their laptop, at least (also: secure boot optional).
I read the article and the letter Canonical sent. It all seems pretty reasonable. There isn't any threat or demand, it seems like a pretty friendly request to make it clear the website isn't associated with Canonical/Ubuntu.
From Shuttleworth on down the line, Canonical is suffering a meltdown from the frustration of failure and loss.
Once the golden boy of the Linux revolution, Shuttleworth himself has devolved in the public eye to a petulant bully. Of course, he has only himself to thank for that, but such is frequently the trajectory of a highly driven personality, when denied the victories, fanfare and spoils they see themselves as deserving.
The Ubuntu project was founded on a "build it and they will come" approach to business. While that may work in the movies, it is a poor business model. In reality, "build it, package it, promote it and support it" are the pillars of success in the commercial world. Having failed to recognize the enormity of that task, Shuttleworth and company led themselves down a garden path, in regard to desktop Linux.
More recently, Canonical has sought to establish a vein of exclusivity in its offerings, at the expense of true Open Source principles. In so doing they have tried to make an end run approach to what Red Hat has done more openly, though recent times have seen suggestions that RH is, now, also taking more liberties with the spirit of "free and open".
Of course, Red Hat took its fair share of abuse when first it abandoned the desktop. Canonical seems headed down the same path, but in a slow, drawn out fashion, guaranteed to prolong the ordeal.
Using the logo is not possible to enforce removal. It is used to identify the product. If the product can be identified with something else, then their logo is not unique and therefore of limited utility and bankrupt.
Moreover, you have to use the logo if you wish to ensure that it is the Linux distribution by Canonical called Ubuntu and not some Swahili word for "brown" or whatever, since the word may have many meanings, and the icon then ensures that the correct one is associated.
Your mechanic can use the Ford logo to show that they service Ford cars and this is not diluting the trade mark, even though you are supposedly paying your mechanic for the work they do, right?
He can even say in his brochure "Ford" when saying what cars he fixes.
That is not copyright infringement.
The only dilution is a passing off or a trademark infringement, not even "does he profit off the site", since an IT contracting firm makes money supporting Microsoft Office (tm) installation and configuration for small companies and this is not a crime.
This post is talking about Canonical forcing the removal of the Ubuntu icon from a site, but then right next to this article the Ubuntu icon sits at the top of the page. I had a good laugh about this, and was surprised no one else had pointed it out.
[code] /| -- Shark
x -- Ubunut
/ |
/ |
[/code]
> They cant pick and choose.
In fact they MUST pick and choose. To avoid losing their mark, they need to be proactive about instances that could be considered infringement.
They can allow certain users and decline others. What they can't do, under the law, is ignore potential infringement - they are supposed to either allow it or object to it.
One way they do that is through the published policy, which grants people the right to use their trademark in specific ways:
http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy
One thing their policy explicitly grants permission for is:
You can use the Trademarks in discussion, commentary, criticism or parody, provided that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical.
It seems to me this use was already authorized under that published statement of permission.
"NO! Get out of here with that Ubuntu, and lay off the poor Linux, will ya?! SHEEZE! You're a creep! Go away, we were having a good time until you showed up, Canonical! ARGH! Go have some coffee with cream, or something! Because I'll tell you something! This is a happy place!"
Seriously, I'm going back to Debian after this crap...
/. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
Did you copy / paste the whole review? How long was it? If it was more than a few sentences, you probably should have linked to the full review and copied only a few sentences, or better yet, a few key phrases, like this:
I agree with Jody Bruchon, who says " It's unfortunate that there aren't SLAPP laws in every state". Write our own opinion, blah, blah, blah. ...
Blah, blah, Bruchon is incorrect is the assertion that "the person with the most money always wins" because
You say you copied the review "so I could refute it ", but you don't have to copy and paste an entire work in order to refute it. I can refute Obama's latest speech without copying and pasting the entire thing.
Of course if the original review was only two sentences, my comment doesn't apply.
I'm shocked MS hasn't acquired and ceased development of Ubuntu by now.
From the website... Disclaimer: In case you are either 1) a complete idiot; or 2) a lawyer; or 3) both, please be aware that this site is not affiliated with or approved by Canonical Limited. This site criticizes Canonical for certain privacy-invading features of Ubuntu and teaches users how to fix them. So, obviously, the site is not approved by Canonical. And our use of the trademarked term Ubuntu is plainly descriptiveâ"it helps the public find this site and understand its message.
"You can use the Trademarks in discussion, commentary, criticism or parody, provided that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical.
You can write articles, create websites, blogs or talk about Ubuntu, provided that it is clear that you are in no way speaking for or on behalf of Canonical and that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical."
Right off their legal page.
Assuming the fixubuntu site owner live in the USA, they would be well-armed to file suit and force those UK bastards into our courts for a good stomping.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I’m in the process of configuring a large Ubuntu roll-out for work desktops. I was thinking I wanted to disable all the Unity store crapware, and was just about to go Googling when I took a momentary detour to Slashdot. Perfect timing on this! One website with the entirety of what I needed to know to disable this junk. It’s all coded up in a Puppet class now.
Thank you, Canonical lawyers! You saved me the trouble of having to Google to figure out how to disable this garbage on 100 or so users’ desktops!
Canonical never objected to the content, just the use of their logo and domain name. They could give a shit about the content since the same lame instructions are plastered all over the internet.
Canonical sells a product that is mostly developed and supported by other people, often for free. Many of the people here have developed or supported the Linux projects that Canonical distributes as Ubuntu.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
"so where needed we will always start a dialogue to ensure the trademarks are used properly to avoid confusion."
Yes - fuck you too.
Somebody is getting way too much money that could get spend on useful work for this shit.
From Wikipedia: "Ubuntu (/ubntu/ oo-buun-too; Zulu/Xhosa pronunciation: [ùúntú]) is a Nguni Bantu term (literally, "human-ness"") roughly translating to "human kindness"; in Southern Africa (South Africa and Zimbabwe), it has come to be used as a term for a kind of humanist philosophy, ethic or ideology, also known as Ubuntuism or Hunhuism (the latter after the corresponding Shona term) propagated in the Africanization (transition to majority rule) process of these countries during the 1980s and 1990s." As such, Canonical itself is on shaky ground as this could be construed as violating clause "C) Terms that Disparage, Falsely Suggest a Connection with, or Bring a Person, Institution, Belief or National Symbol into Contempt or Disrepute" of USPTO regulations.
Debian response: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/debmirror.git;a=commitdiff;h=fcd972395b0201fcde4915d282982926f0d04c56;hp=7fcdf0d225c480b386c5a1f487e68dc39b57e771
Is a clear sign you have business problems. ( and perhaps some personal ones too )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's been a pretty good ride really. KDE definitely has done a good job of the desktop.
I got a little annoyed at the default, should be the other way around, loss of generic icons with some wacky Plasma only thing but soon found out it was a quick switch away from geting the good stuff back.
That's all.
for LTS people.
Try something like fedora if you like 6 month releases.
Ubuntu, I like you so much. Why did you have to turn to the dark side?