Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 89

Thread: Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    SteamOS is likely not going to affect any other Linux distro's popularity. SteamOS has a very niche purpose - it's not a general purpose OS, it doesn't have many of the things that a regular desktop has: file manager, proper windowing system, terminal, text editors, application support... basically, it's just a steam client with a kernel. You can play steam games, maybe watch some videos / listen to music, maybe browse webpages, that's about it.

    So no, the only cases where SteamOS would replace any traditional OS as a primary OS would be the case of a very hard-core steam gamer that uses their computer for nothing apart from playing Steam games. I don't think those people are a very large portion of users of any Linux distro, or the population in general...
    That's my point. Glad to see we agree.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Bullshit.

    Nominative use -> not an infringement. And also, trademark law doesn't require you to send takedown notices to everyone using your trademark, it just requires you to react in some way to infringments, which this wasn't in the first place.
    I just explained a few post back why the nominative fair use does not apply . And Canonical did not send a takedown notice.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default nerdrage

    it's almost impossible for nerds to take a step back and quit being jerks over something less or more meaningful.
    those guys will sink on their ship rather than change their attitude a little.

    it will always go like this:
    he started it
    he didn't apologize
    his apology wasn't honest
    and if it where honest it was too late

    please note that mark shows signs of being an incredible nerd too.

    i personally think its time to move on

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
    I just explained a few post back why the nominative fair use does not apply .
    You're wrong. Nominative use does apply and it covers the use of trademarked logos and symbols as well.

    And Canonical did not send a takedown notice.
    Yes they did. They wanted the logo taken down, they wanted the name "ubuntu" taken down from the website name, and they informed the website of this with a notice.

    They sent a notice that demanded taking down things. If you claim that's "not a takedown notice" then I don't know what to tell you...

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
    The website fixubuntu.com was using the Ubuntu logo as favicon and using it for the banner of the frontpage . No disclaimer, no hint of criticism, no parody, no nothing. There was no other purpose for using ubuntu trademark logo other than identify and brand the website itself . So the nominative fair use doctrine they are using as excuse clearly does not apply .
    Such disclaimers aren't needed. See the message and references provided by the lawyer. As I said: you say you know more, yet don't back up anything. The lawyer provided references. You say things are needed without providing any references.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
    I just explained a few post back why the nominative fair use does not apply . And Canonical did not send a takedown notice.
    So what field of law do you practice?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    So what field of law do you practice?
    But you?

    He used probably the review of Ars Technica which describes the legal background of this view.

    Ars article is here: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...buntu-privacy/

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ciplogic View Post
    But you?
    I am not claiming authority on the subject, he is.

    We have two sides. One is backed by:

    1. A lawyer at a group that specializes in online IP conflicts
    2. Multiple cases
    3. Ubuntu's own reaction

    The other side is backed by:

    1. Some guy on the internet who has provided no evidence of an legal expertise or legal training, no case law supporting his position, in fact no source whatsoever for his position.

    So the person pushing the second position is, in essence, asking us to just take his word on the matter. Yet he has provided no reason why his word is remotely reliable, not to mention more reliable than an expert on the subject, and certainly not to mention more reliable than an expert on the subject with case law on his side.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciplogic View Post
    He used probably the review of Ars Technica which describes the legal background of this view.

    Ars article is here: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...buntu-privacy/
    I see nothing in that article that contradicts, or even questions, the EFF position. And even if it did, who do you expect me to trust, a tech writer or a lawyer specializing in the subject?

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    So what field of law do you practice?
    And what part of your brain you use?

    fixubuntu.com was not using Canonical trademarks to illustrate its point. Instead, that website was using Canonical's trademarks with no purpose other than identify and brand itself . That website obviously did not pass the Nominative Fair Use test that the EFF is invoking

    From EFF:

    * It's not easy to identify the product/company without using a mark (e.g., using the term "Chicago Bulls" instead of "the basketball team that plays in Chicago");
    * Only so much is used as is necessary to identify the product/company and accomplish your purpose; and
    * You do nothing to suggest the mark-owner has endorsed or sponsored your site.


    As you can see:
    * The ubuntu logo was used in the banner to brand the website
    * The favicon was the ubuntu logo
    * No disclaimer
    * No hint of parody or criticism , nothing! as you can see from the screenshot and the waybackmachine http://web.archive.org/web/201310050.../fixubuntu.com

    Secondly, the highly uncreative domain name "fixubuntu.com" does not give you any clear hint of parody nor criticism. That domain name could be perfectly interpreted as an endorsed website whose objective is to help users to solve problems and bugs with Ubuntu. That looks like click bait and trademark stuffing too me . Adit does not matters if you change your website domain name, your website will remain online all the time, the "take down" FUD is full of BS.

    So.... do you have any other argument other that invoking your masters, the EFF lawyers? Or can you think for yourself without invoking biased lawyers to discuss a very simple issue that is very simple to understand ?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
    And what part of your brain you use?

    fixubuntu.com was not using Canonical trademarks to illustrate its point. Instead, that website was using Canonical's trademarks with no purpose other than identify and brand itself . That website obviously did not pass the Nominative Fair Use test that the EFF is invoking

    From EFF:




    As you can see:
    * The ubuntu logo was used in the banner to brand the website
    * The favicon was the ubuntu logo
    * No disclaimer
    * No hint of parody or criticism , nothing! as you can see from the screenshot and the waybackmachine http://web.archive.org/web/201310050.../fixubuntu.com

    Secondly, the highly uncreative domain name "fixubuntu.com" does not give you any clear hint of parody nor criticism. That domain name could be perfectly interpreted as an endorsed website whose objective is to help users to solve problems and bugs with Ubuntu. That looks like click bait and trademark stuffing too me . Adit does not matters if you change your website domain name, your website will remain online all the time, the "take down" FUD is full of BS.

    So.... do you have any other argument other that invoking your masters, the EFF lawyers? Or can you think for yourself without invoking biased lawyers to discuss a very simple issue that is very simple to understand ?
    Welcome to the USA now go cry some more

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •