Before the start of the holidays last year, the Ubuntu Community Council was approached by a concerned member of the community regarding the news that Linux Mint had been asked to sign a license agreement in order to continue distributing software packages out of the Ubuntu repositories.
Over the past two months, the Community Council has had several discussions, mailing list threads and meetings about this. In addition, we’ve reached out to another derivative for their understanding of the situation and spoken with external legal experts.
We are more than aware that some time has passed since the original approach and feel that we need to make it known that we’ve not been ignoring the situation. Legal issues are complex and we have to be mindful of the difference between personal and legal opinions. Understanding the weight of our words would carry we felt it was important to take time to gather facts and discuss the issue thoroughly.
At this time, we are in agreement that one of the keys to Ubuntu’s success is in providing a well-designed, reliable and enjoyable experience to all of our users, whether they are using Ubuntu on a desktop, a phone or in the cloud. To that end it is critical that when people see “Ubuntu”, it adequately represents the software that we all build and stand behind. This is as important to our individual reputations as much as to the reputation of the project as a whole. Trademarks and Copyrights are the legal tools provided to us for safeguarding those reputations, and it’s part of Canonical’s mandate within the Ubuntu project to use those tools appropriately, balancing the needs of all those involved in making Ubuntu. Canonical already provides a license for the use of these to the Ubuntu project and all of its distributions, including Ubuntu itself as well as those flavors that are developed in collaboration with it.
We believe there is no ill-will against Linux Mint, from either the Ubuntu community or Canonical and that Canonical does not intend to prevent them from continuing their work, and that this license is to help ensure that. What Linux Mint does is appreciated, and we want to see them succeed.
The Community Council feels that Canonical is making an honest and reasonable effort to balance the needs of the community and that any specific legal concerns should be addressed to the legal councils of those involved.
Finally, the Community Council would like to take this opportunity to remind people that it is important to work in a respectful collaborative manner when there are issues that concern the community. While this has been a valuable discussion to have, it’s also important to remember that everybody involved in the Ubuntu project, Canonical included, wants to see it and open source in general succeed and become as widely used as possible. Be mindful that you do not get caught up in a controversy, where a discussion with the parties concerned could clear up any misunderstandings. But when you do have any concerns about an issue such as this, we strongly encourage you to contact the Community Council directly and we will always do our best to provide accurate information or, when necessary, appropriate intervention to resolve the issue to the benefit of everybody involved. We are available to everybody, inside or outside the Ubuntu community.
Ubuntu Community Council
February 14th, 2014 at 08:41:41 GMT+0000
While I and most of Ubuntu users respect your decisions, we will probably see more aggresivity from Linux Mint’s and others distributions communities towards Ubuntu community because of this.
There are a lot of people that I encountered, that stopped using and recommending Ubuntu because of decisions like this because they think that Ubuntu is moving away from Linux community.
I am not a lawyer to understand in depth of what you are trying to achieve, but it sounds more like you are telling Linux Mint’s owner to either sign your license, either stop using Ubuntu as a base of it’s Ubuntu-derivate distributions, which kind of goes against GPL and the term “open-source”.
And probably most distro communities will understand it like this.
February 16th, 2014 at 02:34:10 GMT+0000
The word “ubuntu” is taken from the African, Bantu language group. If one takes the trouble to understand the true meaning of the word, and,more particularly, the cultural responsibility which it defines, then it quickly becomes apparent that, by its very nature, ubuntu describes a paradigm in which trademarks and copyright are anathema to the principles and objectives of (the practice of) ubuntu. I find it rather distasteful how a software distribution can usurp the word “ubuntu” for itself, and as you say above, use it to define your image as “provider of fine software”, and yet you have paid no royalties for the use of so noble a word, and then, on top of it all, go making chocolate-coated threats about license, copyright and trademarks. Yes, very distasteful!
Oh, and one more thing: when you go searching for a definition of ubuntu, please don’t use the one by Desmond Tutu; it was made for the benefit of a Western reporter and just doesn’t cut it.
February 16th, 2014 at 08:06:30 GMT+0000
Last time I downloaded an Ubuntu ISO ubuntu.com redirected me to a download site hosted for free by a local university. I wonder what these donors will do if Canonical starts enforcing this “license”.
February 16th, 2014 at 14:24:04 GMT+0000
I cannot see how this would be anything but negative for the Ubuntu community. For a “free, open source” community this makes absolutely no sense.
Ubuntu would simply not exist if it was not for the Debian Community and it certainly would not exist the way it does without *countless* other Communities.. This is how Canonical and their Ubuntu Community would like to thank all the volunteers?
It saddens me, truly as I have long pushed and advocated Ubuntu based on — apparently false — Community and ideals.
Hopefully Valve can manage the SteamOS community more responsibly than Canonical has done with Ubuntu. At least Valve thanked the Debian community by providing *all* of their games to Debian volunteers for free.
The way Canonical thanks the community? With legal threats, of course!
Wow… Just… Wow. Total shame. You’ve certainly lost a long-time Community member, Canonical. Good job! 🙂
February 16th, 2014 at 15:27:25 GMT+0000
There is a sad mob mentality from some people against Ubuntu, and whatever the Ubuntu community does,
they will interpret in their own personal way.
Just like the poster below called “Gabriel Bensen” who refutes the use of copyright as something “un-ubuntu”.
Little does he know that free software works thanks to copyright. Free software (such as GPL-licenced)
is able to enforce the four freedoms thanks to copyright. Without copyright, the Linux kernel would be forked and
forked versions could legally stay closed-source. Such things are common knowledge,
and even the FSF has a page out it.
A note to the mob: put your efforts in being constructive, and actually contribute to free software.
The negativity is hurting everyone.
February 16th, 2014 at 16:43:56 GMT+0000
Binaries are not trademarks; trademarks are not binaries. Linux_Mint users access Canonical’s repository servers directly; they don’t go through Linux Mint servers, and users aren’t being asked to accept a Canonical license.
March 24th, 2014 at 15:34:58 GMT+0000
Does Ubuntu, which is derived from Debian Linux, have a licensing agreement with Debian?
March 24th, 2014 at 17:22:12 GMT+0000
Ubuntu does not use Debian’s packages, it recompiles all binaries and makes Ubuntu the contact point for bugs, etc so such a license is not necessary.
June 23rd, 2015 at 16:29:25 GMT+0000
@lyz
Thats not correct. Ubuntu is a Debian derivative [1]. It does incoperate the “Debian” trademark (among many others like KDE, GNOME, Firefox, LibreOffice, Evolution, Abiword, Linux, etc) which *DO* have explicit redistribution-rules (including binary works which *use* there trademarks in Ubuntu). On top Ubuntu does take *packaging* patches direct from debian deb’s and *DOES* repackage binary deb’s [2] from debian. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) [3] apply:
3. Derived Works – The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
7. Distribution of License – The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
Moreover I would suggest to grep for (TM) in the sources. A damn hell lot of code including application-names and artwork as shipped in Ubuntu has trademarks which EXPLICIT deny future limitations. If Canonical adds future limitations they violate ALL this trademarks and are REQUIRED to remove the trademarks, rename applications, etc.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Census/Ubuntu
[2] http://packaging.ubuntu.com/html/traditional-packaging.html
[3] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines