Hacker News Reader

Comment by puller | Hacker News Reader

No context. Seems petty?

The issue was about the logo

Read the letter published by Ars[1], they refer not only to the logo but to the "Ubuntu word" (trademark of Canonical) and "to use the Ubuntu trademarks and Ubuntu word in a domain name would require approval from Canonical".

[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...

Edit: formatting

Petty as all heck on the part of Canonical, I agree.

It doesn't matter, trademark law requires you to pro-actively prosecute violators if you want to keep your trademark.

Although I still wish Canonical was more transparent about who gets to use its trademarks and who doesn't: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/394328

sp332: You're right, although it's not clear to me that this definitely is not a violation. I hope it isn't for the sake of free speech.

It doesn't require you to threaten people who don't violate your trademark, but they did anyway.

Show me where in their message there were any threats.

How fun. It doesn't require you to send requests to people who don't violate your trademark, but they did anyway.

It was very polite, and props to them for that. But that doesn't mean there were no threats.

to use the Ubuntu trademarks and Ubuntu word in a domain name would require approval from Canonical... Unfortunately, in this instance we cannot give you permission to use Ubuntu trademarks...

This has a big "OR ELSE" implicit in it. Requiring means enforcing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com