No License Needed For Kubuntu Derivatives

[Pajn]

Nowhere in that article, not even once, do they actually clearly address or clarify what the license deal with Mint is actually about. Seems fishy to me.

No place on the open internet addresses that. That probably means that the discussions isn't finished and not even the two parts aren't fully aware of what is will finalize as. However it makes is pretty clear that it's about trademark.

[dee.]

No place on the open internet addresses that. That probably means that the discussions isn't finished and not even the two parts aren't fully aware of what is will finalize as. However it makes is pretty clear that it's about trademark.

No it doesn't.

[eidolon]

What about remixes like elementary OS, Zorin OS, Bodhi Linux, PinguyOS, Netrunner, et alii? All the ones I've specifically named make use of Ubuntu's repositories. The vast majority of Ubuntu remixes do; one of the few I'm aware of that doesn't is Linux Deepin.

Status quo isn't of no value for Canonical (though it might be of little-to-no perceived value to Canonical). For one thing, when Canonical touts Ubuntu usage statistics, they are in part calculating that by active connections to Ubuntu's security servers (hence Linux Mint and the other remixes that use those servers are included in that calculation). Similarly, many of the remixes identify themselves as Ubuntu in their browser user-agent strings (including Linux Mint since around Mint 9), and thus are all conflated as 'Ubuntu' in reports like the Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report. Inadvertently encouraging Ubuntu remixes to become more independent by way of instituting a fee or licensing restrictions might have the unintended consequence of undermining some of Ubuntu's mind-share critical mass.

Perhaps an association of remix projects, partnered with companies like Blue Systems, could provide alternative packaging, and repositories for those packages, and thus mitigate these licensing issues.

[Vim_User]

Canonical's case has nothing to do with trademarks. Canonical is claiming that they can add restrictions to the binaries themselves, this meaning: not just binaries of software developed by Canonical, but everything in their repositories, 99.9% of which is developed by people other than Canonical - and in most cases, not even hosted by Canonical, due to mirrors.

Please show us where they claim that.

Mint doesn't use any Ubuntu trademarks, they don't advertise being "derived from Ubuntu" as a part of their product image - and even if they did, that probably wouldn't even be sufficient for a trademark violation, as long as they didn't claim to be affiliated with Canonical or doing so as a part of some kind of sponsorship deal with Canonical.

So why again is Mint's Firefox reporting to run on Ubuntu in its user-agent string and how is that even possible without using the Ubuntu trademark?
Also, explain how is this not advertizing being derived from Ubuntu:

Based on Debian and Ubuntu, it provides about 30,000 packages and one of the best software managers.

http://www.linuxmint.com/about.php

[Kano]

Basically Ubuntu has only around 1000 core packages (maybe now some more due to Mir), the rest are in maintained by the community (universe) and are mainly just mirrored Debian sid packages which get updates in case of problems. It would be a bad joke to require a licence to use those binary packages in derived distributions. I really like the work of the Ubuntu kernel developers, i recompile the kernels just with minimal modifications (AHCI static and sometimes extra hotfixes) but the rest of the packages are pretty boring for me. Basically every derived distro could change to Debian as base without huge problems and then Ubuntu would get even less money as I think the Ubuntu marker in the Firefox browser brings extra money from Google. Of course when somebody uses the unmodified Ubuntu they get even more money because of the Amazon search deal - something that i would disable at least in case i would use Unity. But basically i see no reason to require a licence to use binary packages from the Ubuntu repository, the difference to Debian is just too small. Mainly the mesa/binary 3d drivers are packaged differently and are incompatible with Debian.

[AdamW]

Please show us where they claim that.
So why again is Mint's Firefox reporting to run on Ubuntu in its user-agent string and how is that even possible without using the Ubuntu trademark?
Also, explain how is this not advertizing being derived from Ubuntu:http://www.linuxmint.com/about.php

Trademark law is complex, and it's a good idea to be careful about making sweeping proclamations. It's not just a question of using a trademarked term without permission/attribution; otherwise we'd all have to write Ubuntu(tm), Fedora(tm) etc etc all the time. You can use a trademarked term without permission or attribution in all kinds of circumstances.

There's a whole lot of heat and not much light in this discussion so far, mainly because Canonical doesn't seem to be being at all clear about exactly what it's requiring from whom. It's really that lack of clarity that's the main problem here. If Canonical would at least state clearly what it thinks derivatives need its permission to do and why, it'd make things a lot clearer. It's not even clear whether they're talking about use of the Ubuntu trademarks, or use of the Ubuntu packages, or use of the Ubuntu package *repositories*, or what combination of those three.

[chrisb]

There's a whole lot of heat and not much light in this discussion so far, mainly because Canonical doesn't seem to be being at all clear about exactly what it's requiring from whom. It's really that lack of clarity that's the main problem here. If Canonical would at least state clearly what it thinks derivatives need its permission to do and why, it'd make things a lot clearer. It's not even clear whether they're talking about use of the Ubuntu trademarks, or use of the Ubuntu packages, or use of the Ubuntu package *repositories*, or what combination of those three.

Canonical has already stated that derivatives need a trademark licence to use the Ubuntu trademark. As for the particulars of what was said in licensing discussions with Mint, why is it Canonical's duty to make a public statement? Does Red Hat always make public statements on ongoing licensing discussions with third parties? IMHO this whole thing has been overblown - the Mint guy even said that he hasn't received *any* threats from Canonical - all they did was notify him that he needed a licence, and offer him a licence for a single digit fee.

[chrisb]

Clem claims he has been asked by Canonical's legal department to license the binary packages used by Ubuntu.

When I asked what Mint's plans were concerning the licensing deal Clem answered, "We don't think the claim is valid (i.e. that you can copyright the compilation of source into a binary, which is a deterministic process).

Exactly. The output of a deterministic process is copyrightable. Clem's statement clearly shows he has no idea about how copyright and trademark law works, so we can't rely on his interpretation of the situation - so if you really want to know what he was asked to licence, why don't you just contact him directly and ask him for a copy of the licence that he had been asked to sign?

Except they don't actually say it. They don't say anything directly about the Mint situation there, just lots of empty marketing-talk and corporate-speak.



Notice the clever doublespeak? They make it seem like they're addressing the actual issue, while keeping it very vague and not stating anything definite.

Nowhere in that article, not even once, do they actually clearly address or clarify what the license deal with Mint is actually about. Seems fishy to me.

"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. Canonical already provides a license for the use of these to the Ubuntu project and all of its distributions, including Ubuntu itself as well as those flavors that are developed in collaboration with it."

[dee.]

Exactly. The output of a deterministic process is copyrightable.

It is not if you do not own the copyright to the source material. For example, you can't take a GPL source code, compile it to a binary, then decide that you now own the binary and are allowed to license it under whatever, non-GPL license.

A binary is under the same license as the source code, unless the source code allows relicensing the resulting binary. There is no open source license in existence that allows such a thing.

Clem's statement clearly shows he has no idea about how copyright and trademark law works,

And you do?

so we can't rely on his interpretation of the situation - so if you really want to know what he was asked to licence, why don't you just contact him directly and ask him for a copy of the licence that he had been asked to sign?

He doesn't seem willing (or maybe not able) to share that information.

"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. Canonical already provides a license for the use of these to the Ubuntu project and all of its distributions, including Ubuntu itself as well as those flavors that are developed in collaboration with it."

Right, none of that states clearly and unambiguously what they're demanding from Mint. The original distrowatch article with Clem's comment gave the impression that the license didn't apply to only trademarks, therefore Canonical should have clarified that. Instead they vaguely state something that can be interpreted as meaning they're asking for a trademark license from Mint, but still giving them plausible deniability if the claim is ever challenged.

It has already been stated that the license deal Canonical attempts to enforce on Mint is one that would prevent Mint from competing with Canonical on the OEM market. It would limit, in a very real and commercial way, what Mint is allowed to do as a distribution. This doesn't sound like "oh we just have to do this to protect our trademark", this sounds more like "we're worried you're getting too popular and want to prevent you from competing with us by legal means".

[chrisb]

It is not if you do not own the copyright to the source material. For example, you can't take a GPL source code, compile it to a binary, then decide that you now own the binary and are allowed to license it under whatever, non-GPL license.

A binary is under the same license as the source code, unless the source code allows relicensing the resulting binary. There is no open source license in existence that allows such a thing.

Clem made a statement "We don't think the claim is valid (i.e. that you can copyright the compilation of source into a binary, which is a deterministic process)". A single example of the output of a deterministic process being copyrighted would prove that the statement he made is factually incorrect. You seem to now be trying to clarify on behalf of Clem that he only meant something like "We don't think the claim is valid (i.e. that you can copyright the compilation of a GPL source into a binary". If that is the case, then why did he mention deterministic processes? Why did he imply that he thought that the output of a deterministic process was not copyrightable? Why didn't he mention the GPL if that is what he was talking about?

Anyway, you are wrong that the output from compiling GPL source is not copyrightable - if Alice compiles GPL source into a binary, then that output belongs to her. The GPL is a *redistribution* license - it only applies if she chooses to redistribute the source or the compiled output. If she does not intend to redistribute, then the GPL does not apply, and she can do whatever she wants with the source or binaries - as long as she does not distribute them. If she does not distribute the compiled output but you take it and copy it anyway, then you are guilty of copyright infringement - you have infringed her copyright.

He doesn't seem willing (or maybe not able) to share that information.

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.

Right, none of that states clearly and unambiguously what they're demanding from Mint. The original distrowatch article with Clem's comment gave the impression that the license didn't apply to only trademarks, therefore Canonical should have clarified that.

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.

It has already been stated that the license deal Canonical attempts to enforce on Mint is one that would prevent Mint from competing with Canonical on the OEM market. It would limit, in a very real and commercial way, what Mint is allowed to do as a distribution. This doesn't sound like "oh we just have to do this to protect our trademark", this sounds more like "we're worried you're getting too popular and want to prevent you from competing with us by legal means".

The license is entirely voluntary. Canonical does not have a squad of goons who abducted Clem off the street and forced him to sign a license at gun point. If he doesn't want to sign, all he has to do is ensure that he isn't violating any of Canonical's rights. It's not rocket science, all he has to do is remove the Ubuntu trademarks and point his distro to his own package server. The reality is that he doesn't seem to want to do that, and that's his choice to make.