Re: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: Add font-ubuntu

[Mark H Weaver]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> I'm not entirely sure it's a free software license as indicated by
>> 'fsf-free' either,
>
> Why?

The main thing that worries me is this combination of facts:

1. The license requires that both original and modified versions "which
   are not Substantially Changed" must retain the original name, which
   in this case contains "ubuntu".

2. The license explicitly says: "This licence does not grant any rights
   under trademark law and all such rights are reserved."

3. Ubuntu trademark policy, which states, among other things:

   * You can use the Trademarks, in accordance with Canonical’s brand
     guidelines, with Canonical’s permission in writing.  If you require
     a Trademark licence, please contact us (as set out below).

   * You cannot use the Trademarks in software titles.  [...]

Here's a relevant comment on the subject:

  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-licence/+bug/769874/comments/21

If Canonical were still a friendly member of our community, I probably
wouldn't worry too much about this.  However, ever since I learned about
this:

  Matthew Garrett: Canonical's Ubuntu IP policy is garbage
  https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/35969.html

and the way they treated Jonathan Riddell (creator of Kubuntu) who had
been trying to rectify this issue for years:

  
http://jriddell.org/2015/07/15/ubuntu-policy-complies-with-gpl-but-fails-to-address-other-important-software-freedom-issues/

and the fact that they stubbornly refused to do more than the absolute
minimum needed to retain their right to distribute software covered by
the GNU GPL:

  https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms
  https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/jul/15/ubuntu-ip-policy/
  http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2015/07/15/ubuntu-ip-policy.html

I no longer consider Canonical a friend to the free software movement,
and frankly I don't want to touch any of their stuff with a ten foot
pole, unless it is crystal clear in legalese that we and our users have
the rights we need.  In this case, it is not clear to me.

   Thanks,
     Mark