HMR group possibly stealing the Ubuntu Logo

[Tipped OuT]

[update] direct links don't work, so go here, click New User Form Search (Basic), then type ubuntu: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?...glish&p_d=trmk

Side note: I designed a logo for a non-profit company back in 2004, but it never got used. The weird thing is that one of the variations looked a lot like the current Ubuntu logo, so when I saw it later, it was really freaky to me. This logo of mine never saw the light of day (the went with something totally different), but it's weird. Even the colors I chose (for a multi-cultrual international institution) were very similar.

The first logo could be exceptional. I wouldn't notice that it resembles the Ubuntu logo unless I was comparing them side to side.

Nice post by the way.

[tsali]

I smell a potential shill in this thread.



No, we don't, not when used properly. As in, functions of a business. A logo is a business function, as is a trademark, and ripping one off to create another is altogether rather unforgivable.

Typical. I point out what I see as an irony and I'm immediately labeled a shill.

Do you even know what a shill is?

[Tristam Green]

Typical. I point out what I see as an irony and I'm immediately labeled a shill.

Do you even know what a shill is?

*eyebrow*

I don't recall labeling you as such.

If I had, I'd have quoted you, then said "I smell a shill".

Matter of fact, I was (in the moment) alluding to Giant Speck, an assessment that I retract in light of further understanding of his reasoning; his reasoning may be sound, even though I do not agree with it.

[windows-killer]

ubuntu is open source!

in open source you have the right to copy and sell the content. So whats the problem here? Ubuntu and and the ubuntu logo are open source, and everyone can copy it and rename it to anything they want and they can sell it.

[Therion]

... Ubuntu and and the ubuntu logo are open source, and everyone can copy it and rename it to anything they want and they can sell it.

The Ubuntu name and logo are trademarked property of Canonical LTD.

© 2009 Canonical Ltd. Ubuntu and Canonical are registered trademarks of Canonical Ltd.

Source: http://www.canonical.com/

[windows-killer]

The Ubuntu name and logo are trademarked property of Canonical LTD.


Source: http://www.canonical.com/

ok
This tells me that canonical is close sourcing its logo. why would you want to use their OS since it has a small closed source component? same thing applies to launchpad.
I know many Linux users hate having a closed source component on their OS regardless if its offered at no cost with or without agreements.
I love ubuntu but am trying to understand you guys by asking you all these questions. although to be honest, I would not mind if ubuntu was the same OS (linux based) but closed source and I would not mind paying for it.

[lisati]

ok
This tells me that canonical is close sourcing its logo. why would you want to use their OS since it has a small closed source component? same thing applies to launchpad.
I know many Linux users hate having a closed source component on their OS regardless if its offered at no cost with or without agreements.
I love ubuntu but am trying to understand you guys by asking you all these questions. although to be honest, I would not mind if ubuntu was the same OS (linux based) but closed source and I would not mind paying for it.

And now a word from our sponsor.........






(just kidding)
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Even with OSS, there's usually some kind of terms and conditions (an example can be found here)
Don't our friends at Canonical have a right to protect their investment of time and money?

[pwnst*r]

Don't our friends at Canonical have a right to protect their investment of time and money?

shouldn't that apply to closed-source/proprietary software then? the majority here do not think so.

[lethalfang]

ubuntu is open source!

in open source you have the right to copy and sell the content. So whats the problem here? Ubuntu and and the ubuntu logo are open source, and everyone can copy it and rename it to anything they want and they can sell it.

Ubuntu's Linux's source code is open source, not the trademark.
Whoever has registered that trademark first in a particular country will have the right to remain that trademark. The other party will be forced to change its logo. It's as simple as that.

[lethalfang]

ok
This tells me that canonical is close sourcing its logo. why would you want to use their OS since it has a small closed source component? same thing applies to launchpad.
I know many Linux users hate having a closed source component on their OS regardless if its offered at no cost with or without agreements.
I love ubuntu but am trying to understand you guys by asking you all these questions. although to be honest, I would not mind if ubuntu was the same OS (linux based) but closed source and I would not mind paying for it.

The idea of GPL is that the source code is open, so you and I have the right to copy the source code, and give it a different logo if we wish, and then redistribute the same source code with a different logo as we wish.
Trademark is an entirely different concept. A trademark is a representation of a company.