Re:If it's not practical to redistribute, it's not free soft...
by greyman on Monday November 23, 2015 @06:36PM
(#10618131)
> Which is stupid, because trademark is a legal term, defined by the laws of the land. Canonical can't change the way a country interprets 'trademark'.
No, he just wanted them to clarify, what specifically are the things which should be removed from Ubuntu distribution, so it can be then declared as completely stripped from Ubuntu trademark. (other Linux distributions mentioning in the article do provide such information).
Not at all. RMS isn't philosophically pro-trademark, but he has said that trademark and free software are separate issues (meaning that 'free software' doesn't confer on the user the ability to rip off a trademark).
> but now if anyone wants to do binary redistribution of their product
You CAN redistribute Ubuntu, but only in its whole form. You just can't rip out/add pieces to it and still call it Ubuntu, because then it infringes trademark. If you want to change it, you can, but then it can't be "Ubuntu".
> He criticized Ubuntu for unwillingness to clarify the trademark issue.
Which is stupid, because trademark is a legal term, defined by the laws of the land. Canonical can't change the way a country interprets 'trademark'.