Comment 48 for bug 375345

El Fri, 15 May 2009 15:35:39 -0000
Gorgonzola <email address hidden> escribió:

> 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://doctormo.wordpress.com/2009/05/15
> /ubuntu-canonical-in-trademarks-and-trade/>about who is who’s daddy.</a>
>
  i subscribe what is said in this mail