PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu trademark infringements; a list and discussion



enlightenment now
September 16th, 2008, 08:48 AM
Ubuntu trademark infringements; a list and discussion: inspired by this article. (http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080915#feature)

I thought this would be a good place to list Possible Ubuntu trademark infringements.

from the article the following possible trademark infringements were listed:



Ubuntulite (http://distrowatch.com/ubuntulite)
Fluxbuntu (http://distrowatch.com/fluxbuntu)
nUbuntu (http://distrowatch.com/nubuntu)
[/URL]Elbuntu
Minibuntu
UbuntuiES
Estobuntu
Zebuntu
Ubuntu Rescue Mix
Bubuntu
Boxbuntu
What are other possible Ubuntu trademark infringements that you can think of?

ICEbuntu
Whitebuntu
[URL="http://cafelinux.org/distropedia/node/197"] (http://distrowatch.com/ubuntuce)TITAN LEV (http://shop.affordy.com/en/Page.asp?page=201) (not for the name but for the similarity in the logo used by their home website affordy)
http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=85400&d=1221551934

Please discuss and list any other distros or projects that could potentially be committing a Ubuntu Trademark Infringement that you think should make the ethical decision and change their name before being contacted by Ubuntu and Canonical © Canonical Ltd. legal department.

This is meant to be a Ubuntu Forums community discussion only, the Ubuntu Forums community does not represent General Counsel for Ubuntu and Canonical © Canonical Ltd.

This is a discussion by lay people, into possible Ubuntu Trademark Infringements.
No particular project or distro is being targeted, and this is not meant to offend any project developers.

We have seen other projects change their names, one that comes to mind is GeUbuntu which is now OpenGEU. While the name appears to deliver the message that the Devs have changed from a Ubuntu base to a OpenSUSE base that is not the case they are still Ubuntu based. They have just changed their name to protect the innocent (or guilty depending on your perspective).

For general reference here is the link form Ubuntu:

Trademark Policy | Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy)

joninkrakow
September 16th, 2008, 12:35 PM
Well, according to the article referenced, UCE does not belong on this list...


Of the above (and to the best of our knowledge), only Ubuntu Christian Edition has been granted permission by Canonical to use the word "Ubuntu" in their product name.

...and should probably be removed...

chris4585
September 16th, 2008, 12:55 PM
You know I've contacted trademarks@ubuntu.com and that email does not exist, so how am I suppose to ask Canonicals about the permissions then? I do not want to be rude, I'd like to get permissions.. rather I do or not I wish they had their email up. I might be wrong though

jespdj
September 16th, 2008, 01:05 PM
Well, according to the article referenced, UCE does not belong on this list...
Really? In another thread on this forum we discussed a similar topic (it was about why DistroWatch banned Ubuntu Satanic Edition).

In my opinion, Canonical should not allow religious or other groups to use Ubuntu for their own propaganda purposes like that.

Why does Canonical allow Ubuntu Christian Edition to use the name? If they allow this, then why not allow Muslim Edition, Satanic Edition and other stupid propaganda editions as well? :mad:

I totally disagree with the fact that they officially granted Ubuntu Christian Edition to use the name!

Le-Froid
September 16th, 2008, 01:08 PM
I believe that UbuntuSE(Satanic Edition) was also approved by Canonical.

enlightenment now
September 16th, 2008, 05:12 PM
Well, according to the article referenced, UCE does not belong on this list...



...and should probably be removed...


Really? In another thread on this forum we discussed a similar topic (it was about why DistroWatch banned Ubuntu Satanic Edition).

In my opinion, Canonical should not allow religious or other groups to use Ubuntu for their own propaganda purposes like that.

Why does Canonical allow Ubuntu Christian Edition to use the name? If they allow this, then why not allow Muslim Edition, Satanic Edition and other stupid propaganda editions as well? :mad:

I totally disagree with the fact that they officially granted Ubuntu Christian Edition to use the name!


I believe that UbuntuSE(Satanic Edition) was also approved by Canonical.

Where is the list of distros that have been granted permission? This should be available to the general public to help avoid confusion.

for reference I found this:


What are the different versions of Ubuntu?

There are several different versions of Ubuntu, some with a different desktop and others for a specific market. Here is some information about them.


Kubuntu (http://www.kubuntu.org/) is an official derivative of Ubuntu using the KDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE) environment instead of GNOME (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME). It is part of the Ubuntu project and uses the same underlying system. It is an exciting distribution that showcases the full potential of the KDE desktop. Kubuntu shares the same repositories as Ubuntu, and relies on the same underlying architecture.



Edubuntu (http://www.edubuntu.org/) is an official derivative of Ubuntu designed for use in classrooms. It contains a large number of educational applications including GCompris (http://www.edubuntu.org/Screenshots), KDE Edutainment Suite (http://www.edubuntu.org/Screenshots), and Schooltool Calendar (http://www.edubuntu.org/Screenshots). Edubuntu is developed in collaboration with teachers and technologists across multiple nations. It enables teachers/lecturers with limited technical knowledge and skills to set up a computer lab, or establish an online learning environment, in an hour or less, and then administer that environment.



Xubuntu (http://www.xubuntu.org/) is an official derivative of Ubuntu using the Xfce (http://www.xfce.org/) desktop environment. It is intended for users with less-powerful computers, or those that require a highly efficient desktop environment on faster systems. Xubuntu features primarily GNOME applications.



Gobuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/gobuntu) is a derivative of Ubuntu for people who desire a desktop environment that adheres to the Free Software Foundations four freedoms. It excludes binary-only drivers and strives to ensure that no software is included that puts restrictions on distribution of artwork.

What is the Ubuntu Server Edition?

Ubuntu Server Edition is a version of Ubuntu specifically designed for servers and as such includes the bare minimum you need to get your server up and running. Find our more about Ubuntu Server Edition (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/serveredition).
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/faq

Ubuntu's website may need to be updated but those are whats on the official list.

joninkrakow
September 16th, 2008, 05:24 PM
Really? In another thread on this forum we discussed a similar topic (it was about why DistroWatch banned Ubuntu Satanic Edition).


Distrowatch is their own business, and they can do what they want with it. If they baned UCE, that's their choice as well.... It's not for you to get your shorts in a wad over...



In my opinion, Canonical should not allow religious or other groups to use Ubuntu for their own propaganda purposes like that.


That's your opinion, and you have the choice to not use Ubuntu, but you don't have the choice to dictate what others do....



Why does Canonical allow Ubuntu Christian Edition to use the name?



Probably because they asked???


If they allow this, then why not allow Muslim Edition, Satanic Edition and other stupid propaganda editions as well? :mad:

I totally disagree with the fact that they officially granted Ubuntu Christian Edition to use the name!

As I said, that's your opinion... as to the others, have you any information that Ubuntu _refused_ ? Or maybe it's the simple fact that they didn't ask? Also, the UCE has been around for a while, before anybody really was paying attention to all this, and some time later, Canonical realized it was getting out of hand, so stopped approving....

But in other news... Isn't their change of policy something like what Microsoft and others do/did--turn a blind eye to abuses until their name is made, then start enforcing?

But really, as I said, none of this is worth getting all strung out over.... It's not as if your eternity depended upon it... ;-)

-Jon

god0fgod
September 16th, 2008, 05:24 PM
lol Christian and Muslim editions?

BigSilly
September 16th, 2008, 05:28 PM
We have seen other projects change their names, one that comes to mind is GeUbuntu which is now OpenGEU. While the name appears to deliver the message that the Devs have changed from a Ubuntu base to a OpenSUSE base that is not the case they are still Ubuntu based. They have just changed their name to protect the innocent (or guilty depending on your perspective).

Oh sorry. I seem to have accidentally tripped into a Microsoft forum. I thought this was the FREE AND OPEN SOURCE LINUX BASED UBUNTU forums. My bad.

The name might belong to Canonical, but as far as I knew anyone could take the code and use it as they see fit. Boy did I get that wrong obviously.

snowpine
September 16th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Oh sorry. I seem to have accidentally tripped into a Microsoft forum. I thought this was the FREE AND OPEN SOURCE LINUX BASED UBUNTU forums. My bad.

The name might belong to Canonical, but as far as I knew anyone could take the code and use it as they see fit. Boy did I get that wrong obviously.

This is about the trademark, not the open source code.

enlightenment now
September 16th, 2008, 06:04 PM
We recognise and encourage the concept of a “remix.” Remixes are derived versions of Ubuntu, and it is intended that any software and hardware certifications will apply to a Remix. Therefore the changes from official Ubuntu product must be minimal to be permitted to use the Trademarks. These changes can include configuration changes through the existing Ubuntu configuration management tools, changes to artwork and graphical themes and some variance in package selection. In general, a Remix can have applications from the Ubuntu archives added, or default applications removed, but removing or changing any infrastructure components (e.g., shared libraries or desktop components) will result in changes too large for the resulting product to be called by a Trademark. Note that if the nature of the product's divergence from Ubuntu changes, the Remix naming and Trademark use may no longer apply.
Therefore, if you are creating a derivative of Ubuntu, you may use the Trademarks in association with the software product provided:


the changes are minimal and unsubstantial, as described above
there is no commercial intent associated with the new product
the Trademark is used in a way that makes it clear that your project is a development effort related to the Ubuntu source, but that the software you are working upon is not in fact Ubuntu as distributed by the Ubuntu project. The approved naming scheme to facilitate this is through designation “Remix”. For instance, a new ISO image which has been packaged special tools for software developers could be called “Ubuntu, Developers Remix”, or an image was has been created with Thai language packs could be called "Ubuntu Thai Remix". Words such as "Edition" and "Version" should be avoided, as they have specific meaning within the Ubuntu project. Prefixes, such as “ThaiBuntu” should also be avoided. Any other naming scheme will require explicit permission.
there is no suggestion (through words or appearance) that your project is approved, sponsored, or affiliated with Ubuntu or its related projects unless it has been approved by and is governed by the Ubuntu Community Council.

http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

From the quote above derivatives like:

Ubuntu Hebrew Remix

(I am not sure if anybody else is using the official 'Remix' designation?)

are completely complying with the Ubuntu Trademark guidelines, but unless specific permissions have been made and a formal agreement issued by Ubuntu that would make the following in violation of the Ubuntu trademark guidelines:

Ubuntu Christian Edition (UbuntuCE)
Ubuntu Muslim Edition (UbuntuME)
Ubuntu Satanic Edition (UbuntuSE)

To bring these derivatives into a uniform policy and procedure universality they would all be reasonable and prudent to change their names to:

Ubuntu Christian Remix
Ubuntu Muslim Remix
Ubuntu Satanic Remix

The use of the word 'Edition' implies they have official legal permission to use the Ubuntu Trademark and are somehow affliated with Ubuntu and Canonical © Canonical Ltd.

I also found another resources:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DerivativeTeam/Derivatives

Vince4Amy
September 16th, 2008, 06:06 PM
To be honest this may be about trademark but at the end of the day does it matter? afaik none of these are generating profits.

They are supporting their favourite Distro and when they do so they get complained at with this nonsense. They can't win!, flamed at for saying Ubuntu is bad or flamed at for basing a distro off it which shows that they must like it in order to choose it as a base.

I'm sure Canonical simply doesn't care about these smaller distros using the name Ubuntu anyway. If any users don't like a distro using a name with Ubuntu in it, tough don't use that distro then pretend it doesn't exist. If Canonical has a problem with this I'm certain they will contact them on their own account.

enlightenment now
September 16th, 2008, 06:26 PM
To be honest this may be about trademark but at the end of the day does it matter? afaik none of these are generating profits.

They are supporting their favourite Distro and when they do so they get complained at with this nonsense. They can't win!, flamed at for saying Ubuntu is bad or flamed at for basing a distro off it which shows that they must like it in order to choose it as a base.

I'm sure Canonical simply doesn't care about these smaller distros using the name Ubuntu anyway. If any users don't like a distro using a name with Ubuntu in it, tough don't use that distro then pretend it doesn't exist. If Canonical has a problem with this I'm certain they will contact them on their own account.
That all goes without saying and is quite common knowledge.

All derivatives, in the spirit of Open Source and more importantly to avoid public confusion should voluntarily follow and comply with the Ubuntu Trademark Guidelines.

This is important for the community more so then Ubuntu and Canonical © Canonical Ltd.

Just as the Open Source & GPL guidelines are mostly followed on a honor system so should the Ubuntu Trademark policy be followed on an honor system also by all derivatives. Why wait for their legal department to contact you, Why cost them legal fees? Why not just voluntarily comply and follow their written and published Policy?

It is quite simply a "No Brainer".

Hyside
September 16th, 2008, 06:32 PM
As long as they aren't making a profit, Its not really that big of a deal. If it was taken to court, the Judge would probably throw out the case.

enlightenment now
September 16th, 2008, 06:34 PM
As long as they aren't making a profit, Its not really that big of a deal. If it was taken to court, the Judge would probably throw out the case.Again they(all derivatives) should simply comply on a honor system voluntarily.

No need to discuss ambiguous legalities.

It is simply the ethical choice to make and it helps to alleviate confusion and misunderstanding.

Here is part of the Ubuntu Trademark Policy:


Derived works. The ability to customise Ubuntu to meet your specific needs is one of the great strengths of free software in general, and Ubuntu in particular. While we encourage customisation and derivation of Ubuntu, we must balance that freedom with the integrity of the Trademarks and the quality which they represent. To help reach that balance, we have established the following guidelines and definitions.



We recognise and encourage the concept of a “remix.” Remixes are derived versions of Ubuntu, and it is intended that any software and hardware certifications will apply to a Remix. Therefore the changes from official Ubuntu product must be minimal to be permitted to use the Trademarks. These changes can include configuration changes through the existing Ubuntu configuration management tools, changes to artwork and graphical themes and some variance in package selection. In general, a Remix can have applications from the Ubuntu archives added, or default applications removed, but removing or changing any infrastructure components (e.g., shared libraries or desktop components) will result in changes too large for the resulting product to be called by a Trademark. Note that if the nature of the product's divergence from Ubuntu changes, the Remix naming and Trademark use may no longer apply.

Therefore, if you are creating a derivative of Ubuntu, you may use the Trademarks in association with the software product provided:


the changes are minimal and unsubstantial, as described above
there is no commercial intent associated with the new product
the Trademark is used in a way that makes it clear that your project is a development effort related to the Ubuntu source, but that the software you are working upon is not in fact Ubuntu as distributed by the Ubuntu project. The approved naming scheme to facilitate this is through designation “Remix”. For instance, a new ISO image which has been packaged special tools for software developers could be called “Ubuntu, Developers Remix”, or an image was has been created with Thai language packs could be called "Ubuntu Thai Remix". Words such as "Edition" and "Version" should be avoided, as they have specific meaning within the Ubuntu project. Prefixes, such as “ThaiBuntu” should also be avoided. Any other naming scheme will require explicit permission.
there is no suggestion (through words or appearance) that your project is approved, sponsored, or affiliated with Ubuntu or its related projects unless it has been approved by and is governed by the Ubuntu Community Council.

If you are producing a new product which is based on Ubuntu but which has more substantial changes than those described above as a Remix, you are allowed to state (and we would encourage you to do so) that your product is "derived from Ubuntu", "based on Ubuntu", or "a derivative of Ubuntu" but you may not use the Trademarks to refer to your product. In some cases you may be allowed to use the Trademarks, but we'll need to discuss that. In that event, these products will need a trademark license, and such a license can be revoked if the nature of your divergence from Ubuntu changes. Products which include very invasive changes, such as a new kernel, the inclusion of packages which are not part of the Ubuntu repositories, or anything else that significantly impacts the technical quality or user experience would fall into this category are unlikely to be approved. (Note that if you are including packages which are not part of the Ubuntu repositories, we encourage you to work within the community processes to submit and maintain those packages within the repositories in order to minimise this issue.)
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

I am sure they did not pay their legal department to draft and publish this just for fun or because they do not care.

Again voluntary compliance would be reasonable and prudent.

LaRoza
September 16th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Oh sorry. I seem to have accidentally tripped into a Microsoft forum. I thought this was the FREE AND OPEN SOURCE LINUX BASED UBUNTU forums. My bad.

The name might belong to Canonical, but as far as I knew anyone could take the code and use it as they see fit. Boy did I get that wrong obviously.

You did see it wrong. The name and logo belong to Canonical, but the cod is open.

I don't know what you are going on about... Almost every does it. Firefox does (for the name and logo). You wouldn't want a stincky piece of software legally marketed as "Ubuntu" would you?

snowpine
September 16th, 2008, 06:41 PM
That all goes without saying and is quite common knowledge.

All derivatives, in the spirit of Open Source and more importantly to avoid public confusion should voluntarily follow and comply with the Ubuntu Trademark Guidelines.

This is important for the community more so then Ubuntu and Canonical © Canonical Ltd.

Just as the Open Source & GPL guidelines are mostly followed on a honor system so should the Ubuntu Trademark policy be followed on an honor system also by all derivatives. Why wait for their legal department to contact you, Why cost them legal fees? Why not just voluntarily comply and follow their written and published Policy?

It is quite simply a "No Brainer".

Hi Enlightenment Now, with all due respect, something about your posts on this thread rubs me the wrong way. It seems that Canonical is taking steps to protect their trademark, so I do not understand why you are appointing yourself as the ethical watchdog of the Ubuntu-derivative community? There is a whistle-blower mentality coming through in your posts that is, quite frankly, misinformed (for example, mentioning Ubuntu Christian Edition in your first post when in fact they have explicit permission from Canonical to use the name).

As an example, Ubuntulite has been using the name for years. They will probably change the name to something else as the result of "the letter" however I don't really like your implication that they've been dishonorable or unethical, or that they should have known better.

I don't mean this as a personal attack of course, I just don't get it. :confused:

snowpine
September 16th, 2008, 06:44 PM
ps Is it just coincidence this happens the same week as Whitebuntu?

smoker
September 16th, 2008, 06:51 PM
why the sudden big Hoo-Ha about trademarks? this on top of eulas apparently going to appear on new installs (firefox).

if canonical start 'sending the boys' round to enforce any indiscretions they deem against their trademark all of a sudden, they are only going to alienate people. it seems to me that the spirit of ubuntu is changing!

fluteflute
September 16th, 2008, 06:54 PM
ps Is it just coincidence this happens the same week as Whitebuntu?
Whitebuntu's been around for ages.

enlightenment now
September 16th, 2008, 06:55 PM
Hi Enlightenment Now, with all due respect, something about your posts on this thread rubs me the wrong way. It seems that Canonical is taking steps to protect their trademark, so I do not understand why you are appointing yourself as the ethical watchdog of the Ubuntu-derivative community? There is a whistle-blower mentality coming through in your posts that is, quite frankly, misinformed (for example, mentioning Ubuntu Christian Edition in your first post when in fact they have explicit permission from Canonical to use the name).

As an example, Ubuntulite has been using the name for years. They will probably change the name to something else as the result of "the letter" however I don't really like your implication that they've been dishonorable or unethical, or that they should have known better.

I don't mean this as a personal attack of course, I just don't get it. :confused:No offense taken, this thread is inspired by this article. (http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080915#feature)

About Ubuntu Christian Edition I have seen post(including yours) make reference to this agreement but I have yet to see anyone link to this specific agreement for public review and validation perhaps on the Ubuntu Christian Edition website. Empirical Validation would be nice, until then it is simply hearsay.

Again as I stated in my opening post:



This is a discussion by lay people, into possible Ubuntu Trademark Infringements.
No particular project or distro is being targeted, and this is not meant to offend any project developers.



I am not appointing myself as anything, as you are implying. I am merely opening this up for discussion.

Less confusion perpetrated by derivative naming would be nice. Again I do believe this should be done on a voluntary basis by the derivatives themselves and they should use the Ubuntu Trademark Policy as their road map, respectively.

There should be order to the chaos to help alleviate confusion and misunderstanding from the public eye.

snowpine
September 16th, 2008, 07:02 PM
Whitebuntu's been around for ages.

My mistake; I just learned about it this week on the distropedia/Satanic Edition thread. :)

I wonder if that specific thread influenced Canonical's decision here...

fiddler616
September 16th, 2008, 07:19 PM
FYI, from Ubuntu CE's FAQ:

No, it is not "officially" supported. Our project is not funded by Canonical. However, we have contacted them regarding our project and they have given us guidelines to follow and have thanked us for supporting the Ubuntu Community and introducing Ubuntu to the Christian Community.

snowpine
September 16th, 2008, 07:27 PM
No offense taken, this thread is inspired by this article. (http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080915#feature)

About Ubuntu Christian Edition I have seen post(including yours) make reference to this agreement but I have yet to see anyone link to this specific agreement for public review and validation perhaps on the Ubuntu Christian Edition website. Empirical Validation would be nice, until then it is simply hearsay.

Again as I stated in my opening post:



I am not appointing myself as anything, as you are implying. I am merely opening this up for discussion.

Less confusion perpetrated by derivative naming would be nice. Again I do believe this should be done on a voluntary basis by the derivatives themselves and they should use the Ubuntu Trademark Policy as their road map, respectively.

There should be order to the chaos to help alleviate confusion and misunderstanding from the public eye.

First of all, thanks for keeping it civil and respectful; I will try and do the same.

I don't know the truth about Christian Edition; I was just repeating what I've read on these boards, and I don't really have a source I can quote.

That being said, the tone of your posts suggests that the CE developers have a burden of proof to prove to you they aren't breaking any rules. Shouldn't you presume that they (and all of the other derivatives) are innocent until proven guilty?

enlightenment now
September 16th, 2008, 07:28 PM
FYI, from Ubuntu CE's FAQ:Nice, good to see a reference, I have removed the following three from the OP list:

Ubuntu CE
Ubuntu ME
Ubuntu SE


First of all, thanks for keeping it civil and respectful; I will try and do the same.

I don't know the truth about Christian Edition; I was just repeating what I've read on these boards, and I don't really have a source I can quote.

That being said, the tone of your posts suggests that the CE developers have a burden of proof to prove to you they aren't breaking any rules. Shouldn't you presume that they (and all of the other derivatives) are innocent until proven guilty?

You are correct and I have removed from the OP reference to them as well as ME & SE.

All of these, as all other derivatives are worthy and honorable and it needs to be made clear again, that no one is being targeted in a negative way.

That said it would be nice to have a uniformity to make a third person perspective less confusing, IMHO.

snowpine
September 16th, 2008, 07:46 PM
That said it would nice to have a uniformity to make a third person perspective less confusing, IMHO.

Here, I have to agree with you.

I participate in a lot of of the threads about lightweight, low-resource options. Here's a sample of how a conversation might go:

Q: Ubuntu won't run on my computer, help!
A1: Try Xubuntu
A2: No, try Fluxbuntu--it's lighter!
Q: OK I installed Fluxbuntu, how do I get updates?
A2: There aren't any updates; it's not an official release.
A1: Ha, ha--you should have picked Xubuntu!

I am exaggerating of course, but you get the point. :)

az
September 16th, 2008, 08:08 PM
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

From the quote above derivatives like:

Ubuntu Hebrew Remix

(I am not sure if anybody else is using the official 'Remix' designation?)

are completely complying with the Ubuntu Trademark guidelines

Yes, Ubuntu-rescue-remix.

http://ubuntu-rescue-remix.org

I had originally called it Rescubuntu. A week later, the Trademark policies were revised and I noticed I was violating them. I emailed Trademarks@ubuntu.com and asked for an exception. It was explained to me that Ubuntu needs to protect its trademark and I changed the name of the project to fit the allowed naming scheme.

Ubuntu-rescue-remix.org gets a ton of hits from google searches for "ubuntu remix".

enlightenment now
September 16th, 2008, 08:19 PM
Yes, Ubuntu-rescue-remix.

http://ubuntu-rescue-remix.org

I had originally called it Rescubuntu. A week later, the Trademark policies were revised and I noticed I was violating them. I emailed Trademarks@ubuntu.com and asked for an exception. It was explained to me that Ubuntu needs to protect its trademark and I changed the name of the project to fit the allowed naming scheme.

Ubuntu-rescue-remix.org gets a ton of hits from google searches for "ubuntu remix".az that is awesome and exactly what I am talking about.