Instead of focusing on UbuntuOne, how about taking a look at this website: http://www.hmrgroup.co.uk/
Their logo is the trademarked Ubuntu logo. Now thats productive.
No related posts.
Instead of focusing on UbuntuOne, how about taking a look at this website: http://www.hmrgroup.co.uk/
Their logo is the trademarked Ubuntu logo. Now thats productive.
No related posts.
This entry was posted on May 15, 2009, 2:10 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Arclite theme by digitalnature | powered by WordPress
#1 by Yann on May 15, 2009 - 2:46 pm
Quote
Why should the community spend their time to defend a trademark they do not own and that is being used to develop proprietary software? Not sure what your point is.
#2 by Flimm on May 15, 2009 - 2:52 pm
Quote
I trust Canonical to do their job and protect the Ubuntu trademark in that case.
I personally have higher expectations of Canonical Ltd than of HMR Group, wouldn’t you agree?
Your argument is a common logical fallacy, just because somebody else is guilty doesn’t let one off the hook.
Having said all that, I personally am beginning to reconsider whether Ubuntu One really does violate the Ubuntu philosophy. Maybe I totally misunderstood it, maybe it’s not about community at all. Maybe Ubuntu and Canonical really aren’t distinct as I imagined. Maybe that’s a good thing. But it feels awfully disappointing.
#3 by nixternal on May 15, 2009 - 2:57 pm
Quote
HMR Group is not infringing on the trademarked logo for Ubuntu simply because they are not a competitor nor do they even offer similar services.
#4 by Jason on May 15, 2009 - 3:15 pm
Quote
I may not understand trademark law well, nixternal, but does that mean I can start the Microsoft Burger Stand and use their logo and fonts? Or how about McDonald’s House of Open Source Software?
#5 by Adam on May 15, 2009 - 3:38 pm
Quote
I am not a lawyer (not yet at least, I am a law student), and my understanding of trademark law is spotty. What little I do know is certainly not sophisticated enough for a proper analysis of international trademark law. However, my thoughts are that nixternal is only PARTIALLY correct. Trademarks can vary in their application. A company like Canonical has a pretty widespread trademark since they operate and do business across the globe. So yes, they are in different businesses, and they are in different regions; but, I doubt that it is ironclad as that. And Jason, you can bet Microsoft Burger would be receiving a letter from a lawyer just as quickly as they could open up.
#6 by nixternal on May 15, 2009 - 4:06 pm
Quote
@Jason – probably not because the Microsoft trademark is probably more involved than the Ubuntu one.
There are more than 20 Ubuntu trademarks right now, and only one belongs to Canonical. There is an Ubuntu Deli/Cafe in Napa Valley California, there is a bank that uses their own Ubuntu trademark, there are a couple of organizations in South Africa that has an Ubuntu trademark, and so on.
#7 by Jared Spurbeck on May 15, 2009 - 5:04 pm
Quote
Maybe we should see what Canonical / Mr. Shuttleworth’s take on all of this is …
#8 by Joao Pinto on May 15, 2009 - 6:37 pm
Quote
Steven,
your “Anti-Ubuntuone trademark brigade” comic and discriminating description clearly shows your lack of respect for other people opinions.
Since you seem to be qualified to identify “productive” activities for the Ubuntu community,
exactly, how productive was your post ?
#9 by sharms on May 15, 2009 - 6:49 pm
Quote
@Joao – Right on, not productive, you caught me red handed
#10 by Jerome G. on May 15, 2009 - 10:49 pm
Quote
The logo is infringing for sure.
#11 by foo on May 16, 2009 - 2:04 am
Quote
Jerome G: absolutely wrong, see nixternal’s post above.
#12 by Keithamus on May 16, 2009 - 6:30 am
Quote
I am afraid nixternal is vastly incorrect about his statements. I fear he didn’t even look at the HMR Group website before commenting.
The issue is not the Ubuntu name, but rather the Ubuntu logo.
Regardless of whether or not the Ubuntu logo is trademarked or not, HMR Group are infringing copyright against Canonical through using the logo.
If the logo is trademarked, as it should be, then Canonical have every right to limit the usage of it, and the HMR Group website is infringing the trademark. If it isn’t trademarked, then HMR Group is violating copyright of the logo, which should be held by Canonical.
Either way, I am afraid HMR Group is in the wrong, and nixternal has been misinformed and is spreading misinformation.
Regarding the plight of Ubuntu One, which is obviously the larger issue here. I fully support Canonical. We signed up to use Ubuntu, knowing full well that there was a company backing it, and like any company, they require money to survive. Unfortunately Canonical seems to be attacked every time they make headway, I guess it must be popular to hate them. Canonical are doing what they can to make Ubuntu a sustainable business – and this is great, it means eventually that more money can be spent on making Ubuntu better. All this negativity towards it will only drive the company to support the community less – if all they do is complain. You don’t have to use Ubuntu One, if you want to then you are supporting Ubuntu as an operating system. Does it dilute the Ubuntu brand? About us much as Windows Live dilutes the Windows brand.
#13 by Anonymous on May 17, 2009 - 4:46 pm
Quote
“Java”.