Here's the backstory: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...

Thanks. I'm not a fan of the whole Unity Amazon integration deal myself, but I think there's a clear difference between a site critical of Ubuntu using their name in the domain and their logo in the header image versus a passing remark in documentation or code.

Mind you, I think the original case was a clear attempt at abuse of trademark law against legitimate criticism. I do feel, however, that the distro-that-can't-be-named remark sounds petty. If they want to avoid mentioning Ubuntu they could just say something like "Debian derivatives."

> there's a clear difference between a site critical of Ubuntu using their name in the domain and their logo in the header image versus a passing remark in documentation or code.

IANAL, but as far as I understand US law (it's crazy, but everybody needs to learn it nowadays), the first use is explicitly permitted, while a passing citation in documentation is a more nebulous issue.

I'm very surprised by your statement. It would seem to me to be the opposite way round. Surely a passing a citation is fine, it's using someone's trademark in your branding (and a domain name and logo is arguably branding) that's the nebulous issue? Could you point out to me where I could learn about US law that would teach me this counter-intuitive reasoning?

First, it's not Debian derivatives. It's a specific derivative that, unfortunately, can not be named.

Then, It is a bit paranoid, but Debian people work very har to clear their distro from any IP risk, and writting down the name of that distro that can not be named is now a risk.

Today I learned about http://www.fixubuntu.com.

Thanks Mark!

To quote U$@u

> Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning 'humanity to others'.

Issuing take down notices? Stay classy Mark Shuttleworth