> > On 16 April 2010 15:35, Gregory Zysk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gregory Zysk <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:22 PM > Subject: Re: Ubuntu's not GNU/Linux? > To: Sam Tuke <[email protected]> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Sam Tuke <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I find it hard to believe that it is a licensing issue - many other >> commercial distributions mention Linux repeatedly on their websites (Suse, >> RHEL, Mandriva...), and if it were because of this then why would they be >> able to put it on other pages, and just not the front page? > > It is a licensing issue when they cannot ship their distro and all of its > parts under the GNU/GPL. Certain proprietary components are not free to > modify and distribute unless cleared through the vendor and in the case of > flash that would be Adobe. >> >> Linux is a trademark (and I've gone through the sub-licensing process of >> it myself), but there is nothing stopping companies referencing it - "based >> on Linux", "a version of Linux" etc. are all acceptable references to the >> term. > > I do not see the argument here. Linux as a product is different than that of > the GNU philosophy. >> >> Also GNU's opinion isn't relevant to Ubuntu's ability to refer to Linux as >> far as I can see - they have no rights to the word or its application; what >> power could they have to prevent an organisation from using it? > > There is nothing preventing Canonical from building an operating system off > of the linux kernel. Many companies do that. >> >> I'm not aware of any good reason for Ubuntu hiding the fact that its based >> on GNU/Linux. > > I do not think that they are trying to hide it personally, I believe that > Hugo's comment was right in the fact that they are trying to differentiate > themselves in the market rather than being another linux distro. > Greg >> >> > Sam, >> > >> > That is because they can't. It is about licensing. They ship non-free or >> > proprietary software with their distribution, such as Flash which >> > prohibits >> > them from adhering to the 4 freedoms of the GNU philosophy. You can find >> > GNU's own stance on Ubuntu >> > here.<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/common-distros.html> >> > >> > Gregory >
Neither "Linux" is mentioned on ubuntu dot com first page. I think an official direct question to Mark Shuttleworth, Jane Silber and Jono Bacon could solve the question and it could also received as a kind pressure to foster "GNU/Linux" in some FAQ. The reason, for this I think is that Ubuntu is both a trademark and a product (despite the fact of the existing community), of Canonical Ltd. and probably legal issues raise when a distro is supported by a company. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
