We’re a robotics startup developing a custom development board. We plan to pre-install a modified Ubuntu system (with driver optimizations and pre-installed robotics packages).
According to the IPRights Policy, I understand that:
Redistributing modified Ubuntu with trademarks requires Canonical’s approval
If we remove all Ubuntu trademarks, we can redistribute freely
Problem Description:
If we remove all Ubuntu trademarks and branding, can we legally pre-install and sell our hardware with this modified system without additional licensing?
Our customers may build commercial products based on our board. Are there any Ubuntu-specific policies they need to follow for further redistribution (beyond standard open-source licenses like GPL)?
Is there any official guideline on what exactly needs to be removed? For example:
Logos and icons
“Ubuntu” text in UI/documentation
“Ubuntu” references in source code, package names, or system files (e.g., /etc/lsb-release)
A checklist or removal guide would be very helpful.
I’ve read the IPRights Policy but want to confirm my understanding is correct.
I will be honest with you. I am confident you will not get a straight answer to the questions you asked. Many people have tried, all have (as far as I know) failed.
I appreciate this may be frustrating, but it’s not good practice for Canonical’s legal people to write down the details of how you fulfil the requirements of those terms of service. They are lawyers, but they are not your lawyers.
You should have your company legal representative advise you on this, and set expectations that you will not get a straight answer other than what you’ve already found in the documentation.
Edit: Also, you should very seriously consider entering into a paid license agreement with Canonical to ship Ubuntu image. Given that your organisation, and your customers are benefiting from the work Canonical funds, it’s only fair that you contribute to the maintenance of that body of work.
Thanks for the honest feedback — it’s a bit frustrating, but I appreciate you setting realistic expectations.
We’re actually open to a paid license agreement. The challenge is that unclear boundaries make it difficult to assess the cost and how the terms might affect our customers. A clearer picture would help us make a more informed decision.
Also, thanks for helping get the contact form fixed — that’s great news!
Either way, I’ll give Canonical’s legal team another try and see if we can get some clarity.
I was curious to find out that the above section, in the “Intellectual property rights policy”, does not list the references to
UbuntuMATE
UbuntuStudio
UbuntuCinnamon
UbuntuUnity, or
UbuntuKylin
as protected names/brands/logos !!!
Why is that? An oversight? Technology advancing faster than legal-beagles being able to follow? Corporate has not tagged specific sets of documents for comprehensive review when changes involve any aspects of branding?
