Re: And Red Hat
> As is the case for Canonical.
No, it is not, because of this gem:
You can use our copyright, patent and design materials in accordance with this IPRights Policy.
It is unclear what Canonical's copyright, patent and design materials IP policies apply to.
Canonical playing games again. Or trying to, and failing miserably.
A Trademark is a product branding IP exclusively. It does not assert or convey any IP rights on the product itself, but only on its commercial marketing name, and nothing more.
For example: acetylsalicylic acid, commonly known as Aspirin. Up until the Versailles Treaty of 1919, Aspirin was a trademarked name worldwide. The trademark was owned by Bayer.
Bayer lost the trademark for Aspirin, as part of WWI reparations, in the US, UK, France, and a number of other countries. In Germany, Canada, and other countries, Aspirin is still a Bayer trademarked name.
The product itself is still acetylsalicylic acid, which has no patents. and no IP. The chemical compound itself has been known and used as a medicinal drug since Hippocrates.
Canonical makes no distinction between their trademark, copyright, patent and design materials IP rights, and the IP rights of the actual product - namely the Ubuntu software. Which is why they had to add this "for the avoidance of doubt" blurb. Canonical also does not define what some of these terms mean.
What is Canonical's definition of "design materials", as it applies to their Ubuntu Linux distribution?
Unlike RedHat, which does make this distinction, and quite clearly. The RedHat EULA applies to the RedHat trademark, and to their binaries. Not to the software itself, which is distributed in source code form. There is no mention of patents or design materials or IP rights anywhere that I can see in the RedHat EULA.