I tend to think favorably of Canonical and very highly of Shuttleworth, but in this case I'm already pissed of after reading only the first part of the post. This is just highly manipulative PR speak.
First there's the repeated suggestion that Canonical is "generous" in allowing all kinds of use of its trademark, where however that kind of use, like satire, is protected by law. It's like saying "look how generous I am to stop for pedestrians at a red light".
Second there's the ludicrous analogy between the a bug in the code and the incident. A bug in code, no matter how bad, doesn't compare to an act of aggression aimed at a specific party. The internet did not overreact, it was Canonical that acted with disproportionate aggression. Shuttleworth fails to recognize that and still tries to cover it up by accusing his critics of being unreasonable.
A better technical analogy would not be a bug, but deliberately installing malware.
This is not an apology. It's a defense combined with an underhanded attack an Canonical's critics.
I wasn't one of the "vocal non-technical critics". Now I am. This attitude stinks.
> First there's the repeated suggestion that Canonical is "generous" in allowing all kinds of use of its trademark, where however that kind of use, like satire, is protected by law. It's like saying "look how generous I am to stop for pedestrians at a red light".
Satire is not categorically protected by law and the usage in question was not clearly satire by usual definitions. You should investigate matters more carefully before getting "pissed," because your information seems to be coming from questionable sources.
> Second there's the ludicrous analogy between the a bug in the code and the incident. A bug in code, no matter how bad, doesn't compare to an act of aggression aimed at a specific party. The internet did not overreact, it was Canonical that acted with disproportionate aggression.
All this was was words. To call a letter requesting that a site not infringe on Canonical's trademarks "an act of aggression" is a bit of an overstatement. Computer bugs have caused several orders of magnitudes greater harm.
I'd like to add that Canonical has for years protected the word ubuntu, and it did so coherently.
Projects which were not official projects should not use the name in their url or their name. See getdeb/playbuntu as an example: http://blog.getdeb.net/2008/08/playbuntu-is-now-playdeb-beta.... fixbuntu couldn't be easily confused with an official ubuntu project, but still.
But projects like the (independent) local support forums sure were allowed to use the name, they got an official approval. See also the trademark license: http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy (though I'm annoyed by their use of "intellectual property", I tend to support Stallmans position on this one)
So his first paragraphs - how it is handled and that this is done in a good way normally - seem to be correct to me. Try to create a distribution of Windows (think reactOS), name it Windows something, and compare the reaction.
It does not seem very doubtful to me. The site in question appropriated the two main Ubuntu marks, displayed them as prominently as possible, carried no other identifying marks of any kind and didn't include any kind of disclaimer†. If all of that isn't enough for you to say, "Y'know, maybe he was infringing," what exactly would he have to do for you to say that?
† It's worth noting that even officially sanctioned sites like UbuntuForums take care to explain that they are not Canonical.
He would have to be claiming to be officially ubuntu or leaving that impression with people. I dont think there was any doubt that the site was not a official ubuntu site. In my mind this falls under fair use as specifically allowed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law).
If it would be infringement to use a trademark like that it would be impossible to write about any trademarked product.
> He would have to be claiming to be officially ubuntu or leaving that impression with people.
Again, the word "Ubuntu" was the majority of the domain name and the majority of the page header, and in the header it was accompanied by the Ubuntu logo. Nowhere was any other branding used than Ubuntu's and he made no attempt to clarify that he was not associated with Canonical or Ubuntu. If that isn't enough to even be potentially confusing, what is the bar you think he'd have to clear? Does the page need to literally include the words "THIS IS UBUNTU SPEAKING. I AM HEREBY CLAIMING TO BE UBUNTU"?
> I dont think there was any doubt that the site was not a official ubuntu site
Please remember that there are many thousands of people who log into Facebook by Googling the phrase "Facebook login" and blindly clicking the first thing that comes up (http://readwrite.com/2010/02/11/how_google_failed_internet_m...). You are more technically savvy than most people, so the fact that this does not confuse you doesn't mean it doesn't confuse anyone.
> If it would be infringement to use a trademark like that it would be impossible to write about any trademarked product.
Does the domain name substantially consist of the mark "Ubuntu"? No, and in fact it isn't even part of the domain name. Does the header at the top of the page say "Ubuntu"? No, it says "Ars Technica". Is the Ubuntu logo used as an identifying mark on the page? No, it isn't. This page has a clear identity besides "Ubuntu." It is clearly an article by Ryan Paul of Ars Technica about Ubuntu, and all of the Ubuntu trademarks are used illustratively, not as branding. The same is not true of FixUbuntu.
> Two things, do you really think that most most people will think a fixubuntu site is a official ubuntu site?
Most? Probably not. But I think the potential is there for many to do so.
> The second thing, did you read my link about fair use? I think this pretty much falls into it.
Yes, but as you have not explained why you think it applies here, I don't know what you expect me to get from that link. I have already explained why this use does not seem clearly nominative to me†, and he certainly wasn't using the term "ubuntu" in a generic sense.
† For starters, using the Ubuntu logo as the site's logo seems extremely superfluous. Do you believe visitors to the site will now have trouble telling what Ubuntu is since the logo has been removed?
It is this part i find especially relevant:
A nonowner may also use a trademark nominatively—to refer to the actual trademarked product or its source. In addition to protecting product criticism and analysis
The only part of the first section that wasn't "here's what happened" and "we're sorry, it was wrong" was detailing how generously they use their mark. I'm not trying to condescend, but just like patents and employment law, I think trademarks aren't as simple of an issue as they'd seem. I believe (with my layman understanding) that, in fact, the onus really is on the bearer of the mark to defend it. I think it was a tagline mentioned in the Wired article that spurred my interest (but -- surprise -- can't find it anymore), but that was a detail that I was interested in knowing. I think that's pretty impressive.
> Second there's the ludicrous analogy between the a bug in the code and the incident. A bug in code, no matter how bad, doesn't compare to an act of aggression aimed at a specific party. The internet did not overreact, it was Canonical that acted with disproportionate aggression. Shuttleworth fails to recognize that and still tries to cover it up by accusing his critics of being unreasonable.
This is an extreme reaction. I don't see a notice of misuse of a trademark as an act of agression, rather business in the globalized world. Is it possible forcible purging is Canonical's M.O. and it's just bad luck that they got caught this time? I guess so, but hey -- that's what the courts are for, right?
First there's the repeated suggestion that Canonical is "generous" in allowing all kinds of use of its trademark, where however that kind of use, like satire, is protected by law. It's like saying "look how generous I am to stop for pedestrians at a red light".
Second there's the ludicrous analogy between the a bug in the code and the incident. A bug in code, no matter how bad, doesn't compare to an act of aggression aimed at a specific party. The internet did not overreact, it was Canonical that acted with disproportionate aggression. Shuttleworth fails to recognize that and still tries to cover it up by accusing his critics of being unreasonable. A better technical analogy would not be a bug, but deliberately installing malware.
This is not an apology. It's a defense combined with an underhanded attack an Canonical's critics.
I wasn't one of the "vocal non-technical critics". Now I am. This attitude stinks.