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.
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.
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
You're the one that is confused.
The fair use concept also applies to trademarks. You seem to be laboring under the false "virtual property" notion that much of the current pro-corporate propaganda focuses on these days.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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...
Is there a chance that somebody might mistake his website for Ubuntu, or is it clear that his website is talking about Ubuntu?
If Canonical is selling out its users' privacy for paid placement of results, then criticism is fair and use of the term "Ubuntu" is unavoidable (unlike actually using Ubuntu, which is completely avoidable). If Canonical is using legal threats to silence its critics who have truthful complaints, then all the more reason to do so.
People use trademarked terms and logos *all the time* when talking about the respective products. Sometimes they have a "duh" disclaimer when they do. I'm not sure if this disclaimer, currently on the site, is new or not, but it's clear:
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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...
Sorry, mis-spoke there. What I meant is that the sort of de minimis fair use that TFS seems to be claiming is a copyright concept. Trademark fair use is something different; you have to show that the use is purely descriptive, using only the primary meaning (ie the everyday English language meaning), not the secondary meaning (ie identifying the product). Pretty hard to argue in this case.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
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.
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.
Trademark fair use is something different; you have to show that the use is purely descriptive, using only the primary meaning (ie the everyday English language meaning), not the secondary meaning (ie identifying the product).
Wrong, trademarks can be used to identify the product or service. There is even case law to support this. See New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) where USA Today's use of the New Kids on the Block trademark was upheld because it was used only so much as to identify them.
To be sure, this is not the classic fair use case where the defendant has used the plaintiff's mark to describe the defendant's own product. Here, the New Kids trademark is used to refer to the New Kids themselves. We therefore do not purport to alter the test applicable in the paradigmatic fair use case. If the defendant's use of the plaintiff's trademark refers to something other than the plaintiff's product, the traditional fair use inquiry will continue to govern. But, where the defendant uses a trademark to describe the plaintiff's product, rather than its own, we hold that a commercial user is entitled to a nominative fair use defense provided he meets the following three requirements: First, the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; [FN7] and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.
I used Ubuntu for one version - 05/10, I think it was - then went back with Debian, the previous Linux distro I had used.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
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.
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).
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.
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.
Aaaand that's it; I'm moving to Mint.
May the Maths Be with you!
No, but he is running a site using the Ubuntu name:
Lee set up a website called "Fix Ubuntu," which provides instructions for disabling the Internet search tool.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
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.
Fun fact: disclaimers don't actually mean much. The concern with trademarks is whether it looks like the guy's trying to look like an official Canonical site. A bit of text at the top saying "A disgruntled user's guide to improving privacy" would do more than that full-paragraph disclaimer for legal trademark use.
Nobody's actually going to read that disclaimer. Heck, it even states that only idiots and lawyers need worry about it, and of course nobody's going to assume they're an idiot. Without that disclaimer being read, there's the big "Ubuntu name" on top, in the same styling and typeface as Canonical uses. The page layout and colors are not usual for Canonical, but there's not that much uniformity in their official sites, either (compared to Apple, for example).
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
As an aside, the screenshot shows that the disclaimer is probably new, and the page used to include an Ubuntu logo, too.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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).
And you're confused because you're making this über-US-centric. AFAIK, fair use is a purely American concept. In many countries a notion of 'fair use' doesn't exist. As Canonical is a British company, any argument based on fair use might be totally irrelevant by definition.
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.
How about BSD? BSDs have become mature enough that they are starting to look like a believable alternative to Linux. I wonder if more people from Linux will be moving to BSD in coming years.
Canonical did not have a problem with him using the word Ubuntu in the website, only the logo in the title. (which was since removed).
They did ask him to not to use the domain name fixubuntu.com.
Guess where http://ubuntusucks.com/ and its variants all redirect to?
Hint: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
According to whois, ubuntusucks now belongs to canonical, and obviously they're not going to redirect it to their main page... (which would just give weight to the original message). And setting them up as a parking page would be boring and humorless.
But to their bug tracker, a pure stroke of genius!
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.
And consider Mageia as well? Darned good job done by those volunteers.
> 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.
Looking at that screenshot, I can sort of understand where Canonical were coming from. Sort of. Ish. In that it used their logo and their signature font.
Still a dick move, though. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Canonical if they'd sent him an email requesting that he just changes the appearance and adds a disclaimer on the front page. Asking him to stop using the word "Ubuntu" in the URL is clearly an attack on the site, and not just trademark shenanigans.
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 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.
Is a clear sign you have business problems. ( and perhaps some personal ones too )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
No, but he is running a site using the Ubuntu name:
So what? That does not constitute infringement in and of itself. There are countless examples of trademarks used in 3rd party website URLs such as Fuck Best Buy.
The person they sent the letter to is a US citizen. So it being "US-centric" is absolutely appropriate. Maybe you should have bothered to read that part?
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.
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?