It’s a bit sad at the same tiresome that, saving 13.10 Ubuntu releases and family, almost all the news we received recently about Canonical and Ubuntu have a profoundly negative tint. For if we had enough with the “third chapter” of the wars of Mir, Canonical is itself which now revives the controversy of “spyware on Ubuntu” which last week was Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu winners of Big Brother 2013, an award that did not deserve but it came to be a push … it certainly has not worked. The story this time tells how Canonical legal services, in a display of profound intelligence negligence claim fixubuntu.com the site can not use neither the name of Ubuntu to the domain and the logo of the distribution, to be registered trademarks for which approval is required before you can use. And no, not going to give approval (the excuse is that there may be confusion for the user, you can believe that this site represents Ubuntu or Canonical). Explain that fixubuntu.com is a website owned by a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), one of the most war organizations gave Ubuntu with the theme of “spyware” and searches on Amazon. That site also has only one purpose: to alert users of Ubuntu privacy issue and detail the process of uninstalling all bad elements in this regard. Canonical So, instead of standing quietly for once more as things are these days-and let that “infringement”, as they do with dozens if not hundreds of sites across the Internet, in which If almost no one would have ever heard of fixubuntu.com … Nope, have dedicated themselves to make the seedy and abuse is now Muktware news at Ars Technica, going through as many pages and coming here, of course. Honestly, going to let this new blunder for PING tomorrow, because you also tired of so much bad feeling, but when I read the full information, including fixubuntu.com responsible response, I have not been able to resist or write about it, or dismiss this post with this and other answers: Disclaimer: If you are both 1) a complete idiot, or 2) a lawyer, or 3) both, please note that this site is not affiliated with or endorsed by Canonical. This site criticized by certain functions Canonical invasive of privacy in Ubuntu and teaches users how to fix it. So obviously, the site is not endorsed by Canonical. And the use of commercial term Ubuntu is clearly descriptive, help the public find this site and understand your message. The reply sent to Canonical legal representatives of the Electronic Frontier Foundation also wasted. In the same (see picture) Canonical are reminded that “it is well established by the First Amendment’s protection of the use of terms registered trademarks and logos of non-commercial sites that comment and criticize organizations and products.” Also transmitted the-unnecessarily Canonical removal fixubuntu.com Ubuntu logo as well as unnecessary, also, according to the letter of the EFF-adding the disclaimer quoted above. And finally, the last straw, “Mr. Lee [fixubuntu.com administrator] also notes that gladly remove the site as soon as Canonical default stop violating the privacy of users of Ubuntu. Confident that Canonical will make more efforts to enforce its intellectual property in order to interfere with critical discourses “. Would you look closely at the only two words in the previous paragraph that are bold? That is the crux of the matter, and Canonical is so easy to solve that actually have it solved by their own community. Ubuntu just need to apply it, but unfortunately they seem to have no intention of doing so. Hopefully at least not for them to continue with this claim against Mr. Lee, because then it will roll further. And this is much, much worse publicity for them than Mir. Canonical, meanwhile, has responded to the controversy (Ars Technica), although it is unclear whether they will dizzy partridge or is only one justification: “To protect the brand Ubuntu we need to ensure that wherever you see the logo Ubuntu is an authentic part of the Ubuntu community. We have a public policy (http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy), which is open and accessible, and to protect the brand. Indicates [brand policy mentioned] where you can freely use the Ubuntu brand and where you need a license. Trademark law requires that we protect our brands, so when necessary initiate a dialogue to ensure that the marks are used properly to avoid confusion “. [Update – 11/09/13] In the official blog of Canonical have given in more detail in terms of the company in this matter, but tell us what we already knew: they have to protect their brand, they just wanted to avoid confusion, etc.. They also note that the brand property policies are unusually permissive Ubuntu (which is true) and they will gladly accept criticism (which is not true, as evidenced by this story), and remember to turn off online searches is as simple as entering the system preferences in the security and privacy section, there is the option. They forget to mention the fact that criticisms come not just for the role but for the implementation thereof, obscured for the user. But we will not go back now with temita of yore. Fortunately, though, they give happy with the disclaimer and the elimination of fixubuntu.com logo. The matter is settled.