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
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.And Canonical did not send a takedown 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...
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/
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.
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
* 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 ?