Ubuntu Community Council statement on Canonical package licensing

Or... we can examine a Mint install image payload and see if we can detect any existing Canonical owned trademark material at all in the images. Install image or livecd, whatever Mint produces as bootable media.

And then we can install a base Mint system using that image and see if we can detect any existing Canonical owned trademark material at all on the filesystem left behind by the install process.

And then we can go to Mint's repositories and check all its packages for any Canonical owned trademark material.

We don't have to be lawyers to look for trademarked material. If we don't find any, than its pretty obvious there's nothing to worry about.

Remembering of course that filenames on the system with the word Ubuntu in them are not trademark protected instances nor are packagenames which can be used to cause marketplace confusion.

If that were not true, then Red Hat would need also be a licensee, as Fedora has both packagenames and filenames with the word ubuntu in them...as part of downloadable content. And I think Debian as well, right... Debian has packages which drop payloads using filename with the word ubuntu in them.

I would LOVE to see Canonical ask Red Hat to be a licensee on the grounds that Fedora ships files with the word ubuntu in the name as part of a trademark due diligence campaign. L-O-V-E I-T. It would be like Christmas.