Not very African of them
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| henri Jun 19, 2009 10:17 AM EDT |
Shouldn't be, but am shocked. "Ubuntu" means, roughly, "humanity" "humanness" "humaneness" Relates to the proverb "Umntu ngumntu ngababantu" = "You are a person through other people" which occurs in many, many african languages (the version given is Xhosa). I used to think it a good name for a FLOSS project! Am in fact typing this on an Ubuntu box. Might have to rethink that. What a blot on their copybook. It's like starting a distro called "Friendship" and then shutting down a craft shop called "Friendship". The shop might even be older than the distro! How can copyright/trademark be extended like this? What does a shop have to do with a distro? Like customers are going to walk in and say "Sound control doesn't work at all well"???? |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 19, 2009 10:52 AM EDT |
Trademark has *always* been like this. If Canonical did nothing they would risk loosing the Ubuntu trademark. Unlike copyright you must actively enforce trademarks or you risk loosing them. Sad for the Ubuntu Satanic guys but they should have contacted Canonical before hand so that they could have gotten permission. |
| dinotrac Jun 19, 2009 11:14 AM EDT |
Sander -- Exactly and precisely true. Trademark remains the only IP you must actively defend. Everything else you get the option. Well - not trade secrets, but that should be obvious ;0) |
| jdixon Jun 19, 2009 11:18 AM EDT |
> Exactly and precisely true. Yes, somewhat unfortunate for folks like this who mean no harm to Ubuntu, but true. Ubuntu has no choice in the matter. |
| jdixon Jun 19, 2009 11:26 AM EDT |
> Well - not trade secrets, but that should be obvious ;0) It didn't seem to be to the DVD Copy Control Association. as I recall. :( |
| dinotrac Jun 19, 2009 11:30 AM EDT |
You can go after somebody for improperly acquiring and spreading your trade secrets. However, once the cat's out of the bag, it's not a secret anymore. Anybody who learns the secret without doing dirty deeds is beyond your ability to touch. |
| caitlyn Jun 19, 2009 2:18 PM EDT |
Quoting:Ubuntu has no choice in the matter. I agree with the vis a vis trademark. Please also remember that Satanic is offensive to a lot of religious people. I can understand why Ubuntu didn't want their trademark associated with it from a marketing perspective as well. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 19, 2009 2:20 PM EDT |
Damnit... I wish I had found out about this sooner... I would have loved to have one of those T-shirts... |
| tracyanne Jun 19, 2009 5:38 PM EDT |
Quoting:Please also remember that Satanic is offensive to a lot of religious people And of course it's always the feeling of the Religious we MUST consider. |
| HoTMetaL Jun 19, 2009 5:56 PM EDT |
@caitlyn:Quoting:Please also remember that Satanic is offensive to a lot of religious peoplePlease also remember that Ubuntu Christian Edition is offensive to a lot of non-religious people. Also, Canonical has confirmed this merchandise is protected under a parody clause in copyright legalese, so expect Ubuntu SE's store to reopen shortly. |
| caitlyn Jun 19, 2009 5:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:And of course it's always the feeling of the Religious we MUST consider. That isn't what I said. Let me rephrase, OK? It is really poor business practice to offend a large number of potential customers. Having something that may be seen as offensive to a sizeable portion of the population, particularly here in North America, associated with their trademark isn't a good idea. I'm fairly certain their decision is governed by business concerns, not any particular religious sensibilities. |
| caitlyn Jun 19, 2009 6:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:Please also remember that Ubuntu Christian Edition is offensive to a lot of non-religious people. ...or members of other religions. That's irrelevant since Christian Edition is dead. The Muslim Edition did have to change their name to Sabily. All other non-religious but not officially sanctioned Ubuntu respins also had to change their names or face potential legal problems. The point is that, from an Ubuntu business perspective, Satanic Edition can only be harmful. Can the same argument be made for the Christian or Muslim Editions? Sure, but since they aren't called Ubuntu any longer the point is moot. |
| tracyanne Jun 19, 2009 6:22 PM EDT |
Sorry caitlyn, I was knee jerking to the sad fact that yet again (in a different context) a certain subset of that particular demographic was once again claiming to be offended by something they had to go out of their way to be offended by. |
| jdixon Jun 19, 2009 6:34 PM EDT |
> And of course it's always the feeling of the Religious we MUST consider. It depends. You can safely ignore the feelings of Christians all you want. The only repercussions in this world will possibly be the economic ones of lost sales and at worst case a boycott. Upsetting Muslims, on the other hand, tends to have more substantial and undesirable repercussions in this world. What this says about Christianity versus Islam is left as an exercise for the reader, as I don't want to violate the TOS by getting into an actual discussion about either religion. |
| HoTMetaL Jun 19, 2009 9:13 PM EDT |
@jdixon:Quoting:It depends.It absolutely does not depend (on anything). tracyanne had it exactly correct. Quoting:You can safely ignore the feelings of Christians all you want. The only repercussions in this world will possibly be the economic ones of lost sales and at worst case a boycott.Firstly, Ubuntu should ignore the feelings of ALL secular religions, and focus on just delivering an excellent product to ALL people, regardless of what religion they choose to believe (or not believe). And I believe Canonical does just that. Second, there are no 'lost sales' of a cost-free, open product. So your theory about a boycott crushing Ubuntu is laughable at best. Boycotts are almost never effective, and usually have little impact on businesses in the long-term. Quoting:Upsetting Muslims, on the other hand, tends to have more substantial and undesirable repercussions in this world.And this, jdixon, is exactly why people are turned off by religion, and why there is a slow shift underway towards agnosticism. The constant insults and name-calling by all religions about other religions is ignorant. And you have demonstrated that ignorance right here. Your comment is inflammatory and provides others with a reason why you would experience "undesirable repercussions". Quoting:What this says about Christianity versus Islam is left as an exercise for the reader, as I don't want to violate the TOS by getting into an actual discussion about either religion.This is a bit like saying "I'm not saying your Mother is a whore, I'm just saying that it's interesting that she has money." I'm thinking this thread should be closed before additional ignorant, inflammatory comments are made. |
| caitlyn Jun 19, 2009 9:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:Second, there are no 'lost sales' of a cost-free, open product. So your theory about a boycott crushing Ubuntu is laughable at best. Not so. Ubuntu is owned by Canonical, a for-profit company. Their business model is based on the sales of support and services. If income from those services declines it does threaten the viability of Ubuntu's funding. Quoting:there is a slow shift underway towards agnosticism. Not so. In North America every poll shows people becoming more religious. There is also a shift towards greater religious practice among Muslims worldwide and among Jews in Israel. We've just covered the three major Western religions. I'd like to know where you get your "shift towards agnosticism" from. I can provide links for my data if you like. I understand you are hostile to religion. That's fine and it is certainly your right. However, I would not dismiss the impact that religious people, the overwhelming majority of the world's population at this point, can have on a business. As I said before, I am reasonably certain Canonical's actions were based on business considerations, not any particular religous sensibilities. I also only see one inflamatory comment and it happens to be yours. |
| jdixon Jun 19, 2009 9:53 PM EDT |
> Firstly, Ubuntu should ignore the feelings of ALL secular religions Who's was talking about Ubuntu. I was making a general point. > Second, there are no 'lost sales' of a cost-free, open product See above. > And this, jdixon, is exactly why people are turned off by religion, Which I didn't bring up. Someone else did, and I pointed out that it makes a difference which religion you offend. > This is a bit like saying... Actually, it's nothing like saying. Anyone who bothers to check recent history can verify my above claim for themselves, as the evidence is readily available. And what you think I mean by my last paragraph is just that; what you think. I very carefully chose my words so as to give the widest possible range of interpretation, rather than what I personally think. > I'm thinking this thread should be closed before additional ignorant, inflammatory comments are made. If the truth is inflammatory, so be it. My statements were not, however, ignorant. I seem to far more aware of the recent history of Islamic criticism than you are. All international distributions and commercial distributions have to worry about offending their potential users/customers. Pointing out that different religions react differently to things they consider offensive is not out of line. |
| HoTMetaL Jun 20, 2009 1:09 AM EDT |
Oh Lord, I've disturbed the nest of religious extremists... @caitlyn: Quoting:If income from those services declines it does threaten the viability of Ubuntu's funding.Well of course it does. But you chose to ignore the point I made: boycotts are generally ineffective, and do little to create hardships for companies in the long-term. Quoting:I'd like to know where you get your "shift towards agnosticism" from. I can provide links for my data if you like.You need not bother; I already know the URL for Fox News. I can provide links as well. A simple search will turn up thousands of sites with just as many studies that all find the same conclusion: each successive informed generation is opting out of hypocritical, organized religious groups: [url=http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=is america losing its religion]http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=is america losing its religio...[/url] Quoting:I understand you are hostile to religionWow. You concluded quite a bit from a forum post. I'm neither hostile towards, nor do I care about any religion, including yours. I care about free and open source software, and supporting these technologies. Injecting your religious talking points into a discussion about trademark copyrights doesn't help the community's openness and humanity towards others. |
| HoTMetaL Jun 20, 2009 1:19 AM EDT |
@jdixon:
Quoting:I very carefully chose my words so as to give the widest possible range of interpretation, rather than what I personally think.You very carefully chose your words so as to not violate the TOS of this website. Just as you said. That's all folks, goodnight everybody! Say your prayers. The end is coming. ;) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!