undefined | Better HN

0 pointsajross13y ago0 comments

It's an open source OS. How is "carriers should be powerless" compatible with "users should have all the power?". The carriers are downstream users...

Now, I'm all in favor of interoperability requirements and limits on redistribution that infringes on freedom (c.f. automatic patent grants, antitivoization, etc...). But for branding? I just don't see it. If I, personally, am allowed to reskin my Ubuntu device, surely Verizon must be also, no?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

chimeracoder13y ago· 1 in thread

> If I, personally, am allowed to reskin my Ubuntu device, surely Verizon must be also, no?

That depends on whether or not they distribute it with any of Canonical's trademarks (I'm assuming they have a trademark on Ubuntu, not to mention their own name).

Trademarks are completely independent from (and compatible with) open-source - look at 10Gen, which preserves the rights to the MongoDB name while releasing a product under the GPL.

ajrossOP13y ago

Well, of course. But that's the point. Verizon can reskin it in exactly the way that CentOS does RHEL. And I have no problem with that. My interpretation was that mtgx thought this freedom (shared by me, Verizon, and whoever else wants to use it) was a bad thing ("the carriers should be powerless"), and I disagree.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse