> If that's a correct reading I think Canonical's response is clearly going to be "shove off." How in the world does Canonical benefit from offloading their legal liabilities onto their partners?
I am not a lawyer, but I think the liability is already on their partners. Canonical is trying to prevent a situation where their partner makes a mistake, and then tries to shove the liability off on Canonical or else you'll lose our business. Anyone who has worked for a Linux vendor or as a customer with a major vendor knows how something like that can sour a relationship.
You're premise is right though, the FSF's wording is wrong because it fails to take into account the partner relationship.