On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Greg Grossmeier<[email protected]> wrote: > I think Ubuntu has an opportunity here to create a new brand name for a > software repository that from the beginning implies Free to the user[0], > instead of the usual commercial-sounding options from other companies > (AppStore, Android Market, Palm Software Store, etc).
Very well put, Greg. >> Unfortunately the naming was one thing that had to be done within >> Canonical, for boring legal reasons. > > As someone who also works with lawyers on a daily/weekly basis, I know > how hard it is to change (some of) their minds after the fact. I > understand if Canonical is unable to make this change at this time. I think we need to get this in proper perspective. Everyone here can agree that Ubuntu as a project and Canonical as a company should not take actions which are contrary to law. The Ubuntu project benefits from the fact that Canonical takes care of legal aspects for us, just as it takes care of a lot of other things in the community. However, I don't think that legal considerations can or should stop the project from discussing and adopting a valid and lawful name which fits the program best. The program hasn't yet been released, so I can't think of any legal impediment to changing its name while it is still in beta. I think the way this should have worked (and can still work) was that the project could have discussed the name openly and settled on a name or number of names which are acceptable. Then the lawyers can advise whether the name(s) chosen are legal, or not. Ideally they would participate in the discussion directly. Obviously if, having already been through the process internally, Canonical can tell us which names are off-limits legally, then that will help to exclude certain options. -- Matthew East http://www.mdke.org gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
