Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No License Needed For Kubuntu Derivatives

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Last I checked, they're not charging anyone. Canonical's license says that Mint is forbidden from striking OEM deals (so Mint can't be shipped on new devices by default). And yea, as mentioned, Mint doesn't necessarily use Canonical's servers, they use third party mirrors.
    But Mint is shipped on new devices.

    MintBox

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by iniudan View Post
      But Mint is shipped on new devices.

      MintBox
      I don't know if that is an OEM deal or a company using Linux Mint.

      Comment


      • #23
        meh. and we have a precedent.

        https://torrentfreak.com/hyperlinkin...-rules-140213/

        is "mint using ubuntu repos" considered "hyperlinking"?

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
          This isn't about trademark licensing, it is about binary licensing. Ubuntu is arguing that, although the source is under an open license, the compiled binaries are not.
          No, it is not. You should actually read the statement of Ubuntu's Community Council before discussing further, they clearly state that this is about trademarks and copyright:
          Trademarks and Copyrights are the legal tools provided to us for safeguarding those reputations, and it?s part of Canonical?s mandate within the Ubuntu project to use those tools appropriately, balancing the needs of all those involved in making Ubuntu.
          http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2014/02/13/...age-licensing/

          Comment


          • #25
            I had no idea Canonical had said that. For an open source community this is quite appalling. In fact, I'm embarassed on behalf of Canonical. They obviously doesn't fit in the open source universe.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by felipe View Post
              Well, to be fair, Linux Mint is using the Ubuntu repositories
              So does all direct Ubuntu derivatives and all the derivatives of the derivatives.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                No, it is not. You should actually read the statement of Ubuntu's Community Council before discussing further, they clearly state that this is about trademarks and copyright:http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2014/02/13/...age-licensing/
                Uh, yes, what do you think I meant by "binary licensing". It is right here:

                http://www.canonical.com/intellectua...-rights-policy

                "The disk, CD, installer and system images, together with Ubuntu packages and binary files, are in many cases copyright of Canonical (which copyright may be distinct from the copyright in the individual components therein) and can only be used in accordance with the copyright licences therein and this IPRights Policy."

                In other words, they are claiming copyright on compiled binaries. That is exactly what I said.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Everyone seems upsat at Canonical... but I am struggling to see how this is different than what Red Hat has done?

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by indigo196 View Post
                    Everyone seems upsat at Canonical... but I am struggling to see how this is different than what Red Hat has done?
                    Red hat doesn't restrict the redistribution of compiled binaries, nor do they assert that those compiled binaries are under a non-free license distinct from the license of the source code. They restrict trademark usage, but the copyrights remain under free software licenses.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                      Uh, yes, what do you think I meant by "binary licensing". It is right here:

                      http://www.canonical.com/intellectua...-rights-policy

                      "The disk, CD, installer and system images, together with Ubuntu packages and binary files, are in many cases copyright of Canonical (which copyright may be distinct from the copyright in the individual components therein) and can only be used in accordance with the copyright licences therein and this IPRights Policy."

                      In other words, they are claiming copyright on compiled binaries. That is exactly what I said.
                      They claim copyright on the binaries that contain code and/or themes provided by Ubuntu and where that is applicable. This is why they do not claim copyright for any package/binary, but for "many cases". And mostly it comes down to trademarks and copyright on their design, which is also stated in the document you linked to:
                      Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks.
                      Canonical owns intellectual property rights in the trade dress and look and feel of Ubuntu (including the Unity interface), along with various themes and components that may include unregistered design rights, registered design rights and design patents, your use of Ubuntu is subject to these rights.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X