Ubuntu trademark policy - Will ME and CE need to change their names?

[migla]

http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy "Words such as "Edition" and "Version" should be avoided, as they have specific meaning within the Ubuntu project."

[Aurora Borealis]

Are you coming up with your own religious version...? Or...

[tscook]

Who cares, they shouldn't exist in the first place.

I'm going to make Ubuntu LGBTE.

[migla]

Are you coming up with your own religious version...? Or...

Nope. Just read that draft and thought it might affect ME and CE.

[Fidelio]

Damn.
I can't make the Ubuntu FZ edition, which is just like the standard distro but a small picture of Frank Zappa's beard appears on the splash screen.

But really, I think Ubuntu has a strong brand, and they have to protect it. Ok, it's all open source, and people can do what they like with it, but just sticking a couple of extra bits on it and calling it an 'edition' of ubuntu the way CE and ME have done, will dilute the brand. I would certainly shy away from any distro that I thought was in any way promoting christianity or islam, even by association. So the CE and ME people should be able to release their ubuntu based distros, but they shouldn't be able to call it ubuntu. That's just common sense.

[migla]

As I understand it from the trademark policy draft, you could call it "Ubuntu FZ Remix" (and the religious editions could be named similarly).

[diskotek]

Who cares, they shouldn't exist in the first place.

I'm going to make Ubuntu LGBTE.
there is gaybuntu as well, but lgbte would be more correct

[Hex_Mandos]

There's a problem with CE, ME and SE. Those are all editions of Windows! (Ok, SE was 98, but it's close).

[Aurora Borealis]

This thread has nothing to do with copyright at all. It's antireligious sentiment. I think an email to the developers would be a bit more appropriate.

[maniacmusician]

This thread has nothing to do with copyright at all. It's antireligious sentiment. I think an email to the developers would be a bit more appropriate.
Eh. You see it that way because you're probably religious. Really only a couple of posts focused on dislike of religious versions.

Interesting though, I wonder if Canonical will enforce this.I do agree with Fidelio; a strong brand name is a good thing, and it's not good for distros to have religious implications (emphasis on implications). Rather, the overall image should be highly neutral. Sure, an ideological argument can be made that things like CE and ME are a sign of "inclusiveness" of all religions and ethnicitie, but practically speaking, all tihs really does is create religious connotations that shouldn't exist for a brand name like Ubuntu. It would be more ideal for the religious spinoffs to choose their own names and then note that they are Ubuntu-based.

The difference is basically that by using the word Ubuntu in their name, they are casting their image onto the bigger picture of Ubuntu and Canonical. While this may generate better traffic for the religious spinoffs, it doesn't normally do anything positive for Ubuntu itself.

[PartisanEntity]

The UbuntuME meta-package will most probably change its name as we are in the process of creating a larger project to centralise open source Islamic software. UbuntuME would become a sub project of this.

[Aurora Borealis]

Eh. You see it that way because you're probably religious.

What would make a religious person see it that way?

[migla]

This thread has nothing to do with copyright at all. It's antireligious sentiment. I think an email to the developers would be a bit more appropriate.

For the record: I didn't say anything about whether I think they need a name change. If it was up to me, which it isn't, I'd say let them have their names.

I don't care about trademarks, but I realize trademarks do exist as legal ... things... and I was wondering what, if any, impact this policy will have on the aforementioned "remixes" of ubuntu ("Ubuntu Muslim Edition" and "Ubuntu Christian Edition").

[Aurora Borealis]

Would it rather be a case of asking the big general public what they think of this glaring discrepancy regarding a small group of religious developers who aren't opposing you?

Now, regarding the legal aspect, there are only four possibilities regarding the discrepancy.:

1. Deliberate and knowing violation of the policy.

2. Naming the product before the policy was created

3. Simply not knowing of the restriction about using these terms "Version" and "Edition" when naming the product

4. Prior permission

So, which of these do you think is the reason for the discrepancy? For the record, are you accusing these people of knowingly and willfully defying the policy?

[migla]

Would it rather be a case of asking the big general public what they think of this glaring discrepancy regarding a small group of religious developers who aren't opposing you?

Now, regarding the legal aspect, there are only four possibilities regarding the discrepancy.:

1. Deliberate and knowing violation of the policy.

2. Naming the product before the policy was created

3. Simply not knowing of the restriction about using these terms "Version" and "Edition" when naming the product

4. Prior permission

So, which of these do you think is the reason for the discrepancy? For the record, are you accusing these people of knowingly and willfully defying the policy?

I learnt about the editions before I learnt about the policy. I think the answer is number 2.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

[maniacmusician]

What would make a religious person see it that way?
The reason it would seem that way to religious people is because religiion is something they are passionate about so when they see some antireligious sentiments, they focus more on that and to them it would seem like the discussion was revolving around it because it's what they were focused on. This happens with anyone who is passionate with anything.

Oh, and thanks for focusing on the least important part of my post. You're an absolute genius.

[migla]

@maniacmusician

About "ubuntu-based"... If one merely adds packages and changes settings and looks and the distro is still 100% compatible with ubuntu, that feels like more than "ubuntu-based", since you could make a not so compatible distro which would also be "ubuntu-based".

The policy talks about "remix", but I don't like that word. I think I've heard too many bad remixes when I was younger...

[macogw]

Who cares, they shouldn't exist in the first place.

I'm going to make Ubuntu LGBTE.

That'd be Gaybuntu (see: gaybuntu.com)

[mhancoc7]

Would it rather be a case of asking the big general public what they think of this glaring discrepancy regarding a small group of religious developers who aren't opposing you?

Now, regarding the legal aspect, there are only four possibilities regarding the discrepancy.:

1. Deliberate and knowing violation of the policy.

2. Naming the product before the policy was created

3. Simply not knowing of the restriction about using these terms "Version" and "Edition" when naming the product

4. Prior permission

So, which of these do you think is the reason for the discrepancy? For the record, are you accusing these people of knowingly and willfully defying the policy?

I am the developer of Ubuntu CE. I received permission from Canonical prior to releasing the project. This has been discussed in great length on the forum.

Thanks, Jereme

[Aurora Borealis]

Hi, Jereme. Thank you for your post. Really, the Christian Edition has greater consistency with Ubuntu, definition and philosophy, than anything else. And of course, it's what I use. Thanks for all your hard work, bro.

[TravisNewman]

Aurora Borealis, trust me, this thread is not anti-religion. This is just someone who's concerned about the trademark policy of Ubuntu and how it will affect these versions of Ubuntu. As a moderator, I saw plenty of anti-religious sentiment over Ubuntu CE, and I know that this is not anti-religion.

[Aurora Borealis]

Thank you for your input. I won't rehash what I've observed already; I will simply add three notes:

1. I've been a Christian for 35 years. I've seen both the overt and the subtle.

2. Since prior permission was obtained, that would put Canonical and CE in the same boat so to speak. And it is political to consider this. Damage to one could potentially do damage to the other.

3. Most major media companies, print, audio, and audio visual have Christian imprints because there is a lot of cash in it. While Ubuntu is free, CE cements the loyalty of lots of Christians who otherwise would be donning blue fedoras. After all, there are enough of us out here to put Bush in office twice, (Gaza Strip thing notwithstanding.)