can Ubuntu or other one forbid somewhat that doesn't exist?

[oui]

For me was Debian the symbol of freedom...

And ubuntu too...

But, as I read that




I agree. I think the names with a letter or two followed by buntu are trademarked by Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu.ok, I renounce willing (all the more that it is rather a drawback for Ubuntu is: I do not think the same thing happened with Debian! Maybe my method is sometimes known as a good Debian variante and the community where the idea did be born, Ubuntu Lubuntu, die say "no" ):P !!! The Debian world is really bigger as the Ubuntu world. It includes more distros like Mint, etc...) :D .

I'm wondering :lolflag: !

can Ubuntu or other one forbid somewhat that doesn't already exist trademarking it for all countries?

Where is the freedom going :p if such ideas are born in parts of freedom movements ... Ridiculous for me!

[coffeecat]

There is nothing ridiculous about a company wishing to protect their reputation and image through intellectual property rights and trademark law. If you want to read Canonical's Intellectual property rights policy, you can do so here:

http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy

As far as I can see from that page, if you want to use any name ending in "buntu" in a mark sufficiently similar to one of Canonical's registered trademarks, you will need Canonical's permission. The only freedom of yours that is limited is to come up with a mark which might adversely affect the public image of Canonical or anything related to Ubuntu, the operatng system. That is all Canonical wishes to do - protect their reputation.

If you are in any doubt about any name or mark you intend to use, then contact Canonical. I am sure you will find them helpful.

Edit: anyone puzzled as to where the OP's quotes come from, they are from this thread:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2299243

@oui, you are welcome to start a new thread about some matter that arises in another thread, but if you do so and quote from the first thread, please link back to the earlier thread to give context. It is a courtesy to other forum members to do so.

[buzzingrobot]

Trademark also protects my freedom to trust that a product I use that bears a trademark is actually *that* product and not a fake.

Given the ease with which a FOSS product can be duplicated and distributed, potentially with malware and other security treats, I think trademark enforcement is that much more important in this arena to protect users.

[mcduck]

It's worth keeping in mind that even Linux is a registered trademark. And for a very good reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Mark_Institute

Sometimes it makes sense to limit the freedom a bit to make sure things actually stay free. (Also free software is exactly that, free software, the logos, names and other things are still more often than not registered trademarks. Free software doesn't automatically mean that you are free to do whatever you want, more often it's still owned by somebody, or some company, and just licensed in a way that gives you plenty of freedom to sue, distribute and modify the software itself).

For example you are free to grab Firefox source code, modify it how ever you want, distribute it, promote it, and even sell it. The one thing you can't do is use Mozilla's names and logos and make it look like your version would be same as theirs, they are still the only ones who can make a browser called Firefox. Makes a lot of sense when you think what would happen if anybody could make their own versions of the software and use the same name & logo for it. That could easily cause lots of confusion, and plenty of opportunities for nasty scams etc. Plus I'd say people making these things deserve their credit, even more so when they have decided to give you so much freedom with the software itself!

[grahammechanical]

There is something that I think a lot of people forget. With Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) if we do not like the way things are done we can always do it differently ourselves but we are still restricted by the FOSS licence that the software is released under.

FOSS licensing grants us a lot of freedom but without those licenses some unscrupulous people would be getting very rich from other people's work. And the freedom to do that would be a freedom that would destroy Free and Open Source Software development.

I once heard a story about an individual who became very rich from a patent that he filed for a radio transmitter/receiver. No one was allowed to see inside the black metal box. When finally the insides of the box were revealed it was noticed that this man had not invented anything but he had taken the inventions of others and connected them together to make his transmitter/receiver. He could do this legally because the inventors whose work he stole had not patented their inventions. They believed in scientific freedom.

Regards.

[QIII]

That's Tesla and Marconi.

Tesla had beaten Marconi and had applied for a patent previously -- in the late 1800s!. Marconi was awarded the patent.

However, the US Patent Office eventually overturned Marconi's patent and awarded it instead to Tesla.

Even still, when people talk about who invented the radio, they think of Marconi.

Tesla said early on that he wouldn't fight Marconi, whom Tesla considered a good fellow. He wished Marconi well.

Anyway, when someone later came up with the idea to put transmitter and receiver together as a transceiver, it was patentable by US Patent Law because it was a novel use of pre-existing patented technology.

[mikodo]

That would be Iori Kobayashi I guess. https://www.google.com/patents/US3277374?dq=ininventor:%22Iori+Kobayashi%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMI4KT-3_7MyAIVCtZjCh3utwl1