Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos
<fitoschido@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If the name was so inconsequential, why did the author choose a
> > license that forbid _changing_ the name ?
> >
> > It is one thing to get distros to cooperate together one large project
> > like libreoffice, it is quite another to purposefully try to piss-off
> > their respective Marketing Dept.
> >
> > Norbert (who is not working for any distro, but can imagine why they
> > would find that irritating)
>
> IMHO it is really wrong to imply we’re trying to do free advertising
> by suggesting the addition of the Ubuntu font to LibreOffice.

Sure, I do not believe Bjoern proposing to put that font in Lo is a
marketing ploy; But certainly, in general, naming this font that way
and using a license that prevent renaming is; Neither of these being
under the control of Bjoern. (afaik :-) )

So, that was surely not done with LibreOffice in mind in particular...
but still the intent is there... and even if not the intent, the
consequences are.

Note: I will abide by whatever decision is reached, either way.. _I_
don't care that much. I just wanted to point out that it is Rob-esque
to pretend that the naming and licensing choice were a pure
coincidence, with no marketing consideration...


> (See also: http://pad.lv/703990 “Can the Ubuntu font license avoid
advertising-style clause?”)

Sure, the above rationalized it as not being an 'advertising
clause'... but you still have to call it 'Ubuntu' or change it
'substantially' -- which would defeat the purpose of using them as a
base for templates.
It is hand-waving... (these are not the droid you are looking for...).
Canonical is certainly free to do as it please with its creation...
but let's not pretend that this is not, for all practical purpose, an
advertising clause.

Norbert.

-+-+-+-
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
then it probably is a duck."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test