Why this is not freedom?

[nene7]

hi to all,

I was using diferents linus distro like ubuntu, kubuntu, linux mint, ect. and the one for my use and preference is ubuntu but i dont understand something about the forever free. Why is ubuntu is all free the logo and the name is rademarks of Canonical? we are free but our roots are commercial.

Dont misinterpret it just a curious question.

[lisati]

As I understand it, in a nutshell: with freedom comes responsibility.

[RabbitWho]

There is nothing inherently wrong with companies. Without them you'd be living in a tree eating lice off the backs of family members.

Canonical provide lots of support for companies and professionals who want to use Ubuntu.



Bad troll. Bad.

[dragos240]

As I understand it, in a nutshell: with freedom comes responsibility.

sudo

We trust you have received the usual lecture from the local System
Administrator. It usually boils down to these three things:

#1) Respect the privacy of others.
#2) Think before you type.
#3) With great power comes great responsibility.

[Earl_Maroon]

If Ubuntu and its logo weren't trademarked then anyone could call their distro Ubuntu, which would cause it to lose all meaning.

[wojox]

Watch this movie Revolution OS:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409#

[racerraul]

hi to all,

I was using diferents linus distro like ubuntu, kubuntu, linux mint, ect. and the one for my use and preference is ubuntu but i dont understand something about the forever free. Why is ubuntu is all free the logo and the name is rademarks of Canonical? we are free but our roots are commercial.

With Ubuntu, you have all the freedoms any other distribution provides. However, the founder of Ubuntu has every right within the GPL liscense to make a profit off Ubuntu. As such, the Logo and its corporate Identity is a necessity for business but it in no way shape or form restricts Ubuntu users.

It sounds like you are mistaking the meaning of the word free. And you will be hard pressed to find any information that says that Linux is not meant to be used commercially or for profit.

Read the GPL again... freedom to use, copy, modify and redistribute.
Not freedom to exploit developers.

[bluelamp999]

Watch this movie Revolution OS:

Slightly off topic... took the above advice and am breaking off at half-way through the movie to post this observation.

I'm watching the movie via an OS browser (FF), running on an OS operating system talking to a router with OS firmware (DD-WRT).

Everything working consistently perfectly. They've certainly come a long way...

Now, if only there was a decent OS Flash plug-in...

[RabbitWho]

Slightly off topic... took the above advice and am breaking off at half-way through the movie to post this observation.

I'm watching the movie via an OS browser (FF), running on an OS operating system talking to a router with OS firmware (DD-WRT).

Everything working consistently perfectly. They've certainly come a long way...

Now, if only there was a decent OS Flash plug-in...

I'm so confused.. an operating system operating system? What's that?

Edit: Oh open source! Sorry about that, can't delete posts can i...

[gn2]

OS = open source?

[RabbitWho]

OS = open source?

http://www.google.ie/search?q=OS&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=Swiftfox:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Not my fault! It's a set acronym in a set context which we are within!

[gn2]

Yep I agree "OS" is generally held to be "Operating System", but it's also central to FOSS ;)

[ricardisimo]

There is nothing inherently wrong with companies. Without them you'd be living in a tree eating lice off the backs of family members.

This is the sort of Business School brainwashing that people need to wash out of their brains already. Companies do their utmost to hold back progress, and then they go ahead and take credit for any that takes place... And people believe it. Weird.

The trademark is literally the mark one uses in one's trade. "A peculiar distinguishing mark or device affixed by a manufacturer or a merchant to his goods, the exclusive right of using which is recognized by law."

I have to assume that no one minds that Canonical marks their work with a logo, and that logo, in order to be meaningful within the trade, must be theirs, and not, say, Microsoft's. It sounds like the OP's question is more about any copyrights canonical might hold, rather than their trademarks.

[starcannon]

hi to all,

I was using diferents linus distro like ubuntu, kubuntu, linux mint, ect. and the one for my use and preference is ubuntu but i dont understand something about the forever free. Why is ubuntu is all free the logo and the name is rademarks of Canonical? we are free but our roots are commercial.

Dont misinterpret it just a curious question.

Commercial interests must protect their "brand", otherwise what would the brand mean?
For instance, if everyone out there could sell an iPod, what would that brand mean? Sure there are lots of mp3 players, but when you hear iPod, you know that it is Apple's mp3 player, that it works flawlessly with iTunes, has a certain look, etc... etc...

Brand recognition is a big deal for marketing, thats pretty much the meat of the reason right there; at least imo.

GL and HF

[earthpigg]

hi to all,

I was using diferents linus distro like ubuntu, kubuntu, linux mint, ect. and the one for my use and preference is ubuntu but i dont understand something about the forever free. Why is ubuntu is all free the logo and the name is rademarks of Canonical? we are free but our roots are commercial.

Dont misinterpret it just a curious question.

there is nothing about Free Software or Open Source that is at odds with trademark or trademark law.

The name "Linux" itself is trademarked (http://www.linuxmark.org/), also. Hence, the project in my sig does not have the name "Linux" or "*Buntu" anywhere in it - i'm to lazy to apply for the $0.00 trademark license from The Linux Foundation, and Ubuntu already has an official LXDE spinoff of Ubuntu.

(i could probably go around calling it MasonBuntu GNU/Linux if i wanted and no one would notice for quite a while, but I would still know.)



to look at it another way:

Would it be fair to Ubuntu, to Linux, or to any contributors thereof, if some scumbag came along, packaged FreeBSD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebsd) in a box for $200 at a store, refused to release source code, and wrote "Ubuntu Linux" on the box?

if not for trademarks, that would be entirely legal!

[bluelamp999]

Yep I agree "OS" is generally held to be "Operating System", but it's also central to FOSS ;)

Agree, my bad... It's just hard typing 'open source' all the time...

[RabbitWho]

This is the sort of Business School brainwashing that people need to wash out of their brains already. Companies do their utmost to hold back progress, and then they go ahead and take credit for any that takes place... And people believe it. Weird.
.


Ha ha. You sound like me when I was like 12 and read Fight Club for the first time.

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the way a community works.

[dragos240]

OS = open source?

Or operating system.

[magmon]

As I understand it, in a nutshell: with freedom comes responsibility.

I'm recalling a spiderman moment...

Even if you're going to give something away, I'm sure you'd like to keep the idea that you created. Copyrights are necessary.

[earthpigg]

Copyrights are necessary.

indeed. without copyrights, there is no GPL and no Free Software and no Linux as we know it, and certainly no Ubuntu at all.

[marchwarden]

This is the sort of Business School brainwashing that people need to wash out of their brains already. Companies do their utmost to hold back progress, and then they go ahead and take credit for any that takes place... And people believe it. Weird.

Your suggestion that companies do their utmost to hold back progress only holds true for monopolies and cartels. In competitive markets, innovation is a competence that is required to get ahead of the game.

[3rdalbum]

Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. The Firefox branding can only be used on Mozilla-approved builds of Firefox.

A rose by any other name smells as sweet, but a turd still smells bad, no matter if you call it a rose.

[t0p]

I think the OP is of the "BSD is free, GPL is not" school. Which is an opinion.

Not my opinion though. GPL rules, BSD drools!! :p

[uberdonkey5]

A rose by any other name smells as sweet, but a turd still smells bad, no matter if you call it a rose.

lol

yeh, if someone set up an ubuntu site, full of false information and viruses, I would be pretty upset. Besides, canonical are not 'non-commercial'.. they make money out of consultancy. It is the software that is free.

[hoppipolla]

It's a fair comment... I think certain things will always have "owners", not everything can always be free for everyone or everything could just be stolen overnight!

If Ubuntu is going to develop as an OS and Canonical as a powerful force in the OS market, they need to protect their assets, basically :)

Ultimately also, they need to make money at least to pay their staff and keep growing :)

[-grubby]

Why is ubuntu is all free the logo and the name is rademarks of Canonical? we are free but our roots are commercial.

One reason: so other people can't abuse them.
Another reason: Identity. Nobody wants 10 different distros all using the same logo.

[hoppipolla]

One reason: so other people can't abuse them.
Another reason: Identity. Nobody wants 10 different distros all using the same logo.

Very true :)

[ricardisimo]

Your suggestion that companies do their utmost to hold back progress only holds true for monopolies and cartels. In competitive markets, innovation is a competence that is required to get ahead of the game.

I'm sure that does hold true in competitive markets, probably on the planet Trafalmadore or Laputa or wherever. Unfortunately for us, there are no competitive markets on the planet Earth. When you find one, let us know.

More to the point, companies develop a product, and by definition, their view of progress stops right there. It has to stop or slow down until they have sold every one (or at least most) of whatever they have made.

Finally, in my country, as in yours, most everything has regressed, in practical terms, as production has been shipped overseas to cheaper, less labor-friendly locales. Japanese cars are just about the only thing of value left in any market anywhere, and those are produced, by-and-large, in labor-friendly economies. Oh, and marketing technologies (propaganda) have indeed progressed rapidly.

That's what I think, anyhow.

[MikeTheC]

I don't really understand what the OP asked. Did anyone else understand?

[samjh]

I don't really understand what the OP asked. Did anyone else understand?

Basically what he/she is asking is: Ubuntu claims to be "free", so why is the name "Ubuntu" and its logo trademarked?

My somewhat cryptic answer to the OP's question is: freedom is not free.

In other words, freedom comes at a cost. Sometimes that cost is to utilise protective mechanisms to guard against unscrupulous exploitation. A trademark is one such form of protection.


I'm sure that does hold true in competitive markets, probably on the planet Trafalmadore or Laputa or wherever. Unfortunately for us, there are no competitive markets on the planet Earth. When you find one, let us know.I used to work in tourism and hospitality. Competition is fierce in that sector in almost all areas of the world.

Interestingly, the technology industry as a whole, is extremely competitive. Same for science.


More to the point, companies develop a product, and by definition, their view of progress stops right there. It has to stop or slow down until they have sold every one (or at least most) of whatever they have made.What definition says that when a company develops a product, progress must stop?

When a company develops a product, a rival company will attempt to develop a better one. It's the nature of business. I've yet to come across any business which doesn't examine its competitors' products and services, and attempts to come up with a better one. It's an endless cycle.


Finally, in my country, as in yours, most everything has regressed, in practical terms, as production has been shipped overseas to cheaper, less labor-friendly locales. Japanese cars are just about the only thing of value left in any market anywhere, and those are produced, by-and-large, in labor-friendly economies. Oh, and marketing technologies (propaganda) have indeed progressed rapidly.I don't think that has anything to do with progress. It's just economics at work.

If a product can be produced cheaper in country A compared to country B, manufacturing will inevitably move to country A. I don't like it any more than the next guy, but it's the nature of the human condition: we always try to get more from less, and labour is one of those things. An example which springs to mind immediately is public services: a lot of people complain about public services because they don't believe the public services are efficient enough per tax dollar. More from less. Travellers complain about long queues at airport check-in desks, but almost no-one is willing to pay more for tickets so that additional staff can be recruited and more desks hired. More from less. Consumers want cheaper prices, but then they complain when production is moved off-shore in order to keep production costs from rising. More from less.

It's a sad fact of the human condition. The only way to stop that would be protectionism, but very few countries are willing to risk ruin of their economy with that kind of stunt.

[HappyFeet]

Btw earthpigg, there is no one seeding masonux, so I'll download it and seed for a while.

[Mustard]

Just reading the first few posts it occured to me that even should 'Ubuntu' the trademark fail, the benefit it has given to open source development thus far would be of far greater value than the worth of the company today. It comparing apples and oranges, but I like them oranges! :)

[WalmartSniperLX]

Yeah..

This is annoying. Sorry. I still see so many users, especially on this forum, heading into the wrong direction with the whole "freedom" understanding. There's nothing wrong with corporations or proprietary rights. There's a reason for trademarks. I don't even have to explain it.

*sigh* and Linus said he wasn't happy with the direction that the major Linux community has headed. Anti-ownership bandwagons was not what he had in mind.

I hope this knocks in some food for thought. :P

And, don't take this as a misinterpretation of the question by taking it too far. I'm just throwing this out there as well :D