--
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:04:21 -0800
From: Troy Ready t...@troyready.com
To: Ubuntu US California ubuntu-us-ca@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: [Ubuntu-US-CA] Privacy, Trademark Canonical
Message-ID:
cam9f0atapm0-vs3zpo2xz+xxb1l856dfcmq8weapzn4oheq
I think in order to fully understand this issue, we need to see all sides
of the story, and not a blog post of one of the people involved in the
event taking place. This email is a re-tweet from someone who is largely
very anti Canonical, This list needs to find a way to get a clear and
concise
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 11/07/2013 05:07 PM, Jono Bacon wrote:
I don't think is trademark law to silence a critic. I think it is
trademark law to protect a trademark.
Seems more likely to be inadequate staff lawyer supervision to me. If
you
wow!
RT @lcafiero RT @marciahofmann: Oh, Canonical. It's silly to use trademark law
to try to silence a critic! Especially a critic who works at @EFF.
https://t.co/25ipxoHxPY
I am not happy to read about this in this way. Thoughts?
fyi,
Grant
--
Ubuntu-us-ca mailing list
Doesn't seem that bad to me. I could agree that it's against the spirit
of open source, but they've put a ton of time and money into promoting the
brand of ubuntu and I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be wary of
allowing very negative websites using that branding to go unanswered.
On
I don't think is trademark law to silence a critic. I think it is
trademark law to protect a trademark.
Was news to me though and I am checking into it.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Troy Ready t...@troyready.com wrote:
Doesn't seem that bad to me. I could agree that it's against the spirit
I can see both sides of the coin on this one. However, I feel that
Ubuntu should be more transparent about their search/privacy policy and
be upfront with users about having the option to disable the search
function, if so desired.
On 11/07/2013 05:07 PM, Jono Bacon wrote:
I don't think is
