Ubuntu's not GNU/Linux?

[Kostas Boukouvalas]

>
> On 16 April 2010 15:35, Gregory Zysk <gmzysk at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Gregory Zysk <gmzysk at fedoraproject.org>
> Date: Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Ubuntu's not GNU/Linux?
> To: Sam Tuke <mail at samtuke.com>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Sam Tuke <mail at samtuke.com> wrote:
>>
>> I find it hard to believe that it is a licensing issue - many other
>> commercial distributions mention Linux repeatedly on their websites (Suse,
>> RHEL, Mandriva...), and if it were because of this then why would they be
>> able to put it on other pages, and just not the front page?
>
> It is a licensing issue when they cannot ship their distro and all of its
> parts under the GNU/GPL. Certain proprietary components are not free to
> modify and distribute unless cleared through the vendor and in the case of
> flash that would be Adobe.
>>
>> Linux is a trademark (and I've gone through the sub-licensing process of
>> it myself), but there is nothing stopping companies referencing it - "based
>> on Linux", "a version of Linux" etc. are all acceptable references to the
>> term.
>
> I do not see the argument here. Linux as a product is different than that of
> the GNU philosophy.
>>
>> Also GNU's opinion isn't relevant to Ubuntu's ability to refer to Linux as
>> far as I can see - they have no rights to the word or its application; what
>> power could they have to prevent an organisation from using it?
>
> There is nothing preventing Canonical from building an operating system off
> of the linux kernel. Many companies do that.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any good reason for Ubuntu hiding the fact that its based
>> on GNU/Linux.
>
> I do not think that they are trying to hide it personally, I believe that
> Hugo's comment was right in the fact that they are trying to differentiate
> themselves in the market rather than being another linux distro.
> Greg
>>
>> > Sam,
>> >
>> > That is because they can't. It is about licensing. They ship non-free or
>> > proprietary software with their distribution, such as Flash which
>> > prohibits
>> > them from adhering to the 4 freedoms of the GNU philosophy. You can find
>> > GNU's own stance on Ubuntu
>> > here.<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/common-distros.html>
>> >
>> > Gregory
>

Neither "Linux" is mentioned on ubuntu dot com first page. I think an
official direct question to Mark Shuttleworth, Jane Silber and Jono
Bacon could solve the question and it could also received as a kind
pressure to foster "GNU/Linux" in some FAQ. The reason, for this I
think is that Ubuntu is both a trademark and a product (despite the
fact of the existing community), of Canonical Ltd. and probably legal
issues raise when a distro is supported by a company.