Hi Simon, Am 02.03.2020 um 11:02 schrieb Simon Phipps: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:32 AM Brett Cornwall <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I believe that Canonical is related here because, like TDC, the > proposal > appears to be that a for-profit entity be given exclusive rights to a > trademark to a supposed community-owned product. Like TDC, > Canonical's > founding idealized Shuttleworth's pessimism that free software could > survive without a for-profit entity as its protector. > > > That assertion about TDC is also incorrect. Far from the implication > you make, TDC is being granted only the necessary rights to act as > TDF's agent in the app stores. Nothing more. TDF still controls the > overall LibreOffice trademark, and TDF also licenses it to other > entities in the ecosystem like CIB, Collabora and the retailers of > various clothing. The license is exclusive *only* *in the app stores*, > and that is because TDF will also be acting against knock-off apps > selling the brand in ways that reflect poorly on LibreOffice. Again, > the attempt to equate this to Canonical is very unhelpful, although > your parting shot is illuminating.
But on the other hand you are also saying, that it is getting harder and harder to install software (on properterian systems) without the app stores and more over you do not have any choise on Windows S or iOS, which is correct. From the vendors view it is even logical (earning money, keeping the system secure, etc. etc.). So basical TDC is getting a monopoly on many system, hence the Cannoical example is really perfect. I hope you understand that many in the community do not fear that these "decisions" were made in good faith or might be correct at the moment, but can lead to "bigger problems" in future (saying 10 or 20 years?). Dennis
