Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
    Ubuntu is trademarked in the United States too, so it is protected . The owner of fixubuntu.com was appealing to the 'nominative fair use ' ,but sadly, his own website did not pass the application of his own argument. You have to take a look at the original website to realize that canonical was right. In reality , there are no "first amendment" issues
    http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by synaptix View Post
      That's copyright, not trademark. And no, it does not works for fixubuntu.com neither.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
        That's copyright, not trademark. And no, it does not works for fixubuntu.com neither.
        Interesting how you claim to know more than a lawyer. The EFF lawyer provided references. You make claims without providing clear examples. After the lawyer response, Canonical backed down quickly. Yet Canonical still somehow was right? Bzzt!!!

        Comment


        • #34
          Mark Shuttleworth apologizes to 2 groups of people.
          1. The "Taxed Enough Already" Party, a Republican party faction in the United States. He says that they could be somehow offended by KDE open source developers' behavior.
          2. People who criticize Canonical on a non technical and purely opinionated basis.

          That means: Mark Shuttleworth is NOT apologizing to the people who he should be directing an apology on the first place: Aaron Seigo, Martin Grlin, Lennart Poettering, and every developer who criticizes Canonical on a technical basis.

          MS, your behavior sucks. Really.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by bkor View Post
            Interesting how you claim to know more than a lawyer. The EFF lawyer provided references. You make claims without providing clear examples. After the lawyer response, Canonical backed down quickly. Yet Canonical still somehow was right? Bzzt!!!
            The website fixubuntu.com was using the Ubuntu logo as favicon and using it for the banner of the frontpage . No disclaimer, no hint of criticism, no parody, no nothing. There was no other purpose for using ubuntu trademark logo other than identify and brand the website itself . So the nominative fair use doctrine they are using as excuse clearly does not apply .

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
              That means: Mark Shuttleworth is NOT apologizing to the people who he should be directing an apology on the first place: Aaron Seigo, Martin Grlin, Lennart Poettering, and every developer who criticizes Canonical on a technical basis.

              MS, your behavior sucks. Really.
              He is not apologizing to them because his original statement says it is to people who criticize on a political basis. All of us assumed he referred to almost all of the critics, because there was a single occasion where an action was clearly politically motivated, and it was reverting the patch, from Intel. He never stated the ones criticizing Canonical on a technical basis are like the TEA Party, so it is consistent not to apologize to them. He stated within the apologize that he likes the technical feedback, even when it is in the form of criticism.

              Comment


              • #37
                Canonical is a typical corporation. First they launch a probe to see how much they stifle criticism or at least hurt the critics. Then, when the feel the limits, they "apologize".

                I don't buy it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  This isn't an apology, this is damage control

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                    He is not apologizing about Canonicals' instance on defending their trademarks and copyrights, why should he?. Instead, he seems to be apologizing about using the toughest email template for their request .

                    The fact is , that website fixubuntu.com was indeed abusing from Canonicals trademarks and copyrights, there is no doubt about it. And i do not see how that website could be silenced in any way by that requests. Companies are entitled to defend their copyrights and trademarks from misuses or abuses too.
                    Bullshit.

                    Nominative use -> not an infringement. And also, trademark law doesn't require you to send takedown notices to everyone using your trademark, it just requires you to react in some way to infringments, which this wasn't in the first place.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                      And that's my whole point. As I said in my first answer on this topic, I do think it will have great success, and greater in numbers than Ubuntu. But I also think this will not affect negatively Ubuntu (i.e., its user base will not shrink because of SteamOS). I am a bit skeptical that it will imply a huge turn on the world or something like that, though.
                      I will not be buying one because I don't have money for it now, but I'd be probably doing the same as you if I had.

                      NOTE: Sorry for the double post, I sent the other one forgetting I had this in another window.
                      SteamOS is likely not going to affect any other Linux distro's popularity. SteamOS has a very niche purpose - it's not a general purpose OS, it doesn't have many of the things that a regular desktop has: file manager, proper windowing system, terminal, text editors, application support... basically, it's just a steam client with a kernel. You can play steam games, maybe watch some videos / listen to music, maybe browse webpages, that's about it.

                      So no, the only cases where SteamOS would replace any traditional OS as a primary OS would be the case of a very hard-core steam gamer that uses their computer for nothing apart from playing Steam games. I don't think those people are a very large portion of users of any Linux distro, or the population in general...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by dee. View Post
                        SteamOS is likely not going to affect any other Linux distro's popularity. SteamOS has a very niche purpose - it's not a general purpose OS, it doesn't have many of the things that a regular desktop has: file manager, proper windowing system, terminal, text editors, application support... basically, it's just a steam client with a kernel. You can play steam games, maybe watch some videos / listen to music, maybe browse webpages, that's about it.

                        So no, the only cases where SteamOS would replace any traditional OS as a primary OS would be the case of a very hard-core steam gamer that uses their computer for nothing apart from playing Steam games. I don't think those people are a very large portion of users of any Linux distro, or the population in general...
                        That's my point. Glad to see we agree.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by dee. View Post
                          Bullshit.

                          Nominative use -> not an infringement. And also, trademark law doesn't require you to send takedown notices to everyone using your trademark, it just requires you to react in some way to infringments, which this wasn't in the first place.
                          I just explained a few post back why the nominative fair use does not apply . And Canonical did not send a takedown notice.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            nerdrage

                            it's almost impossible for nerds to take a step back and quit being jerks over something less or more meaningful.
                            those guys will sink on their ship rather than change their attitude a little.

                            it will always go like this:
                            he started it
                            he didn't apologize
                            his apology wasn't honest
                            and if it where honest it was too late

                            please note that mark shows signs of being an incredible nerd too.

                            i personally think its time to move on

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                              I just explained a few post back why the nominative fair use does not apply .
                              You're wrong. Nominative use does apply and it covers the use of trademarked logos and symbols as well.

                              And Canonical did not send a takedown notice.
                              Yes they did. They wanted the logo taken down, they wanted the name "ubuntu" taken down from the website name, and they informed the website of this with a notice.

                              They sent a notice that demanded taking down things. If you claim that's "not a takedown notice" then I don't know what to tell you...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                                The website fixubuntu.com was using the Ubuntu logo as favicon and using it for the banner of the frontpage . No disclaimer, no hint of criticism, no parody, no nothing. There was no other purpose for using ubuntu trademark logo other than identify and brand the website itself . So the nominative fair use doctrine they are using as excuse clearly does not apply .
                                Such disclaimers aren't needed. See the message and references provided by the lawyer. As I said: you say you know more, yet don't back up anything. The lawyer provided references. You say things are needed without providing any references.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X