Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    Welcome to the USA now go cry some more
    What?

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
      So.... do you have any other argument other that invoking your masters, the EFF lawyers? Or can you think for yourself without invoking biased lawyers to discuss a very simple issue that is very simple to understand ?
      So you attack the person you respond to and you claim to know better than a lawyer. You've stated multiple times that you know more than a lawyer.

      Fact: After the lawyer sent a letter, Canonical apologized in various ways.

      Fact: Lawyer has a degree.

      Fact: You claim to know more than someone who has a degree

      Fact: Most/all people here aren't impressed with your claims

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by bkor View Post
        So you attack the person you respond to and you claim to know better than a lawyer. You've stated multiple times that you know more than a lawyer.

        Fact: After the lawyer sent a letter, Canonical apologized in various ways.

        Fact: Lawyer has a degree.

        Fact: You claim to know more than someone who has a degree

        Fact: Most/all people here aren't impressed with your claims

        MS only apologized about sending the wrong template. They also defended their right to protect their trademarks. In fact, they should protect their trademarks, it would be idiotic not to do it.

        And frankly , i have never been impressed with arguments from authority . If that's all you have, then move on, because that is a worthless argument to begin with .

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
          MS only apologized about sending the wrong template. They also defended their right to protect their trademarks. In fact, they should protect their trademarks, it would be idiotic not to do it.

          And frankly , i have never been impressed with arguments from authority . If that's all you have, then move on, because that is a worthless argument to begin with .
          I said that Canonical apologized in various ways. So I'm not talking about one response, I'm talking about multiple.

          Regarding your idiotic "arguments from authority": READ IT YOURSELF!!!

          "cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert": You're really saying that a lawyer is not a subject-matter expert?

          GET REAL ALREADY!!

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by bkor View Post
            I said that Canonical apologized in various ways. So I'm not talking about one response, I'm talking about multiple.

            Regarding your idiotic "arguments from authority": READ IT YOURSELF!!!

            "cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert": You're really saying that a lawyer is not a subject-matter expert?

            GET REAL ALREADY!!
            * cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter: A biased lawyer is hardly a consensus
            * any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
              * any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
              You can't apply deductive reasoning to laws, as they are out of the formal logic scope.

              Comment


              • #57
                I don't see how that doesn't fall under fair use. There was never anything stating that the website was endorsed by Canonical (reading the content, it's clear that it's not). Using the logo is informative ? you can tell that the information is applicable to Ubuntu (otherwise you'd have to start taking down all the web articles that use the Ubuntu logo when reporting news about it). It's not even using the official colours, too. The favicon is really irrelevant, because it also falls under fair use (that's much smaller than web resolution and also of different colours). They're also not releasing a product with the Ubuntu name or profiting from that in any way.

                Sure, the lack of a disclaimer is not nice, but that's unintentional. Instead of a takedown notice, the site owners should have got sent a request for a disclaimer.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                  I don't see how that doesn't fall under fair use. There was never anything stating that the website was endorsed by Canonical (reading the content, it's clear that it's not). Using the logo is informative ? you can tell that the information is applicable to Ubuntu (otherwise you'd have to start taking down all the web articles that use the Ubuntu logo when reporting news about it). It's not even using the official colours, too. The favicon is really irrelevant, because it also falls under fair use (that's much smaller than web resolution and also of different colours). They're also not releasing a product with the Ubuntu name or profiting from that in any way.

                  Sure, the lack of a disclaimer is not nice, but that's unintentional. Instead of a takedown notice, the site owners should have got sent a request for a disclaimer.
                  The use of the logo was not nominative .The Ubuntu logo was used to brand the website itself and nothing else . Just look at the screenshot. That is not fair use at all. And the use of the word ubuntu "fixubuntu" in the url is accusative , not nominative. Companies and projects are in general entitled to protect their trademarks , for instance http://wordpress.org/about/domains/.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                    The use of the logo was not nominative .The Ubuntu logo was used to brand the website itself and nothing else . Just look at the screenshot. That is not fair use at all. And the use of the word ubuntu "fixubuntu" in the url is accusative , not nominative. Companies and projects are in general entitled to protect their trademarks , for instance http://wordpress.org/about/domains/.
                    Nope, I'm not seeing that. By that logic, Canonical should be closing down Kubuntu, Xubuntu etc. websites because they have the word "Ubuntu" in them and they are not affiliated with Canonical. They even produce a product with that name!
                    I also don't see how you can draw a distinction between "nominative" and "accusative". It's clearly nominative. It says that the website is about changing something in Ubuntu. Making the name "Fix the primary Linux distribution made by Canonical" makes zero sense (and http://fixtheprimarylinuxdistributio...canonical.com/ makes even less sense).

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                      The use of the logo was not nominative .The Ubuntu logo was used to brand the website itself and nothing else . Just look at the screenshot. That is not fair use at all. And the use of the word ubuntu "fixubuntu" in the url is accusative , not nominative. Companies and projects are in general entitled to protect their trademarks , for instance http://wordpress.org/about/domains/.
                      When did you get your law degree?

                      And which school? I'm going to call them and ask them to take you back because obviously the education didn't sink in the first time.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X