Comment 75 for bug 375345

@José Tomás Atria

With all due respect, you misread my comment. I was not commenting on any 'legal' issues. I was simply pointing out that there is a trademark policy which is shown online and which clearly allows commercial use. Whether or not you agree with what Canonical has done is irrelevant.

Your comment said:

"BUT, the problem, and the whole point of my previous comment, to put it in your terms, is that the nuanced solution that was reached to the delicate problem of the relation between Canonical and Ubuntu was, to a great extent, the Trademark Policy, and its relation to the Ubuntu promise and philosophy.

And this solution was in the form of a promise by Canonical to use the name ubuntu for certain things only, and specifically, not for things that are not ubuntu, are not part of ubuntu, and have clear commercial intent (which canonical has all the right to produce and develop, of course)."

However, this is not correct. The policy does allow for commercial use. Again whether or not you agree with this is a different issue. But the fact remains, it does allow it.

The problem is that Canonical are being accused of breaching the policy when that is not the case. The second problem is that a lot of people are reading these comments and then simply repeating them without checking whether they are in fact correct. Hence, many people are effectively slandering Canonical through their own ignorance. And continued usage of this statement here is only making things worse.

Again, the legality of all this is not the issue. The policy does allow commercial use and thus Canonical have not violated their own policy and as such have not "broken their promise," as you put it, in this respect.