Originally posted by chrisb
View Post
Did Canonical take away his freedom of speech? If he willingly signed a license and promised not to reveal the details, then that's his decision. But there was no law stopping him from revealing the details of what, exactly, he was being asked to license.
Canonical's legal team should have made a public statement about ongoing legal negotiations with a specific third party, should they? That doesn't sound very professional, does it? Do you realise that Red Hat's Trademark policy actually states that they won't answer *any* questions that you have about licensing their trademarks (unless you have a business relationship with them)? "Red Hat will not respond to requests to review such matters... Red Hat does not advise others on the scope of its intellectual property rights." What you are expecting Canonical's legal team to do is something that other legal teams would not do.
Comment