© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
I don't see why we are even discussing the pertinence of this bug. It is clear:
Since Ubuntu One 1.- has commercial intent 2.- is not part of ubuntu 3.- suggests association with ubuntu but has not been approved by the ubuntu community council and 4.- has a name that clearly falls within the list of unaceptable use of the trademark (cfg UbuntuMan)...
Canonical has breached their own Trade mark policy, and if they were a different entity from the trademark owner, they would be subject to legal action.
In other words: obviously they have the *legal right* to do this, but the bug is not about their legal right, is about the breach of the promise that the trademark policy embodies; this is, "to encourage widespread use of the Ubuntu trademarks BY THE UBUNTU COMMUNITY while controlling that use in order to AVOID CONFUSION on the part of Ubuntu users and the general public, to maintain the value of the image and reputation of the trademarks and to PROTECT THEM FROM INAPPROPIATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE." (emphasis mine).
So canonical should, in the short term, rename the service, and in the long term, transfer effective control/ownership of the trademark to the community, by whatever legal means this requires (notice that this was what the trademark policy was originally for: use was subject to approval by the community council).
Alternatively, Canonical should openly state that they have no intention of continuing to uphold the trademark policy, change its terms of licensing, assert their ownership of the project and stop making false promises. i.e, fuck the community.
There's no middle ground in this, it is, as others have put much more eloquently than me, <a href=http://