Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canonical Targets Ubuntu Privacy Critic

Posted by Soulskill on from the probably-should-have-thought-that-through-a-bit-more dept.

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.'"

16 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Dickish move... by jddeluxe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ....but what would you expect???

    1. Re:Dickish move... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      He probably meant to reply to the grand-parent (founder of this thread), but instead misclicked on the racist reply (which is no longer as high up as it used to be, given the obvious moderation it received...). His post is relevant to the thread ("it is a dickish move" => "lawyers have to be dickish, or they lose their trademark"), just not to the immediately preceding message (that racist bullshit)

      Or are you just annoyed at the tangent/personal experience (Ubuntu T-Shirts)? That's stuff that just happens in a conversation, that's how conversations evolve and stay lively and interesting!

    2. Re:Dickish move... by beltsbear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This 'little choice' thing is untrue and bullshit yet it keeps being repeated. Ubuntu's lawyers can explicitly offer licensed use of their trademark to anyone they please with or WITHOUT fee. They could easily allow use of the shirts with an email. They could attach conditions as needed and even set it up so they can ask the user of the logo to stop at any time.

  2. If you are still using Ubuntu... by bazmail · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..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.

  3. And the response is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:And the response is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But they aren't silencing critics.

      I know that's going to be the popular meme in this discussion, but they aren't. They are asking that their trademarked name be removed from the url and that their trademarked logo be removed from the site. That's entirely reasonable defense of their trademark (*) and in no way prevents the author from still posting the _content_ of the site.

      * Trademark law, unlike copyright, must be defended or you weaken your trademark to the point of losing it. Look at Kleenex and Xerox for examples. If you become aware of infringement of your trademark and allow it to persist, you weaken your ability to defend it in the future. Thus, if they don't defend the trademark infringement that is happening, they risk losing it. Pure and simple.

    2. Re:And the response is... by umafuckit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But this isn't a site promoting an alternative distro or selling a product. It's site about Ubuntu. So how does its presence weaken the Ubuntu trademark? It's like saying that this post weakens the trademark because it uses the term "Ubuntu". I bet Canonical won't bother going after http://ubuntu-artists.deviantart.com/ or http://podcast.ubuntu-uk.org/

      --
      soylentnews.org
    3. Re:And the response is... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But they aren't silencing critics.

      I know that's going to be the popular meme in this discussion, but they aren't. They are asking that their trademarked name be removed from the url and that their trademarked logo be removed from the site. That's entirely reasonable defense of their trademark (*) and in no way prevents the author from still posting the _content_ of the site.

      * Trademark law, unlike copyright, must be defended or you weaken your trademark to the point of losing it. Look at Kleenex and Xerox for examples. If you become aware of infringement of your trademark and allow it to persist, you weaken your ability to defend it in the future. Thus, if they don't defend the trademark infringement that is happening, they risk losing it. Pure and simple.

      I don't think they're taking this action because they're concerned that their brand is being diluted or co-opted or made generic. "FixUbuntu" is specifically about fixing problems Lee perceives Ubuntu to have. He's not using the name Ubuntu to mean Linux in general, or all open source operating systems, or operating systems in general. Canonical is acting like United Airlines in their battle vs. untied.com, that is to say, using trademark protection as an excuse to squelch criticism. And they're getting similar results.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:And the response is... by rmstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But they aren't silencing critics.

      Correct.

      Also, the letter they sent him is extremely nice, especially considering the usal tone of this type of document. It really is very different from the standard "nastygram".

      Please, people, keep it real. Also, don't be such fucking ingrates. Without ubuntu, linux would not be in such a good shape.

      Disclosure: I use xubuntu and don't plan to switch.

    5. Re:And the response is... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      really nice?

      what the hell does that matter? the 'request' is a request no matter what wording you use.

      the request, itself, is out of line. does not matter if sugar coated or not.

      why does 'niceness' matter when you are being told you have to comply??

      'the cop pistol-whipped me, but he sure had a nice smile while doing it, so I didn't mind'

      yeah, right.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  4. they can ASK him to change it by Maow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. They can always ask? by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...
  6. Re:Fair Use? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You can says that Ford sucks without infringing on Ford Motor Company's trademark.

    You cannot just build a better car, and call it a Ford...

    Now, the question is: is this guy selling/providing a better Ubuntu (not allowed...), or is he just criticizing Ubuntu (allowed).

  7. Re:The Sphinx's Riddle by Kardos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's still open source, you can remove whatever you want. That is the short-term immediate solution - and many have done so -- search how to remove the dash.

    That said, it's a clear sign that Canonical doesn't value the privacy of its users. Their default is moving to "privacy disrespecting" and that means users will need to actively keep up on the latest "how to fix the privacy flaws in Ubuntu", a.k.a, it's broken by default. If Canonical continues down this path, more "features" will be incrementally added, and the removal will get harder as they'll get integrated in ways that cause other things to break when removed, etc.

  8. Re:How do people defend Canonical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unity is the answer to a question nobody asked.

  9. Re:How do people defend Canonical? by dugancent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unity is the Linux equivalent of Metro. It doesn't look like it, but it does suck like it.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me