It sure as BLOODY HELL isn't obvious to me. See above. If you mean that using a little magician icon was where the infringement occurred, surely that could have been trivially changed without changing the name of the distro.
Wouldn't the EFF have something to say (i.e., DO!) about a frivolous suit like that? A mandrake is a particular plant of the nightshade family. Hearst can maybe register the name as a trademark in a particular limited context such as comic strips, but not throughout the entire spectrum of commerce. Sheesh.
Do we really think that because Dial Soap is a trademark, nobody can refer to instrument indicators as "dials", or that nobody can set up the Ame Speedometer Dial company?
No, it's not anything whatsoever like that.
I think I understand pretty well. The copyright gives the authors the standing to apply the GPL to the work. The GPL is the mechanism granting and limiting rights to the user. And copyright law is not "defied" if you make and distributes copies; only unauthorized copies. The GPL spells out how authorized copies may be made and distributed.
"GPL v 3.0.
4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice..."
OK, the part where you "slap a new copyright on it" would be a GPL violation. GPL relies on intellectual property rights; it just claims with some justification to use them to non-selfish ends.
1. If you don't stop looking at me, I will hurt you bad.
2. If you don't stop looking at me, I will hurt you bad.
3. If you don't stop looking at me, I will hurt you bad.
[A keeps looking at him]
[B clubs A]
4. Hey, I warned you repeatedly.
Guess it's OK then.
It was a question. A valid one. You're probably right that OP didn't mean that, but it's valid to ask him what he thinks permissable enforcement would consist of.
I notice you completely ignored the real point. "Don't forget: 'intellectual property' is not real property; otherwise it would be covered under property laws and wouldn't need it's own." - thanks, AC.
OP has a very, very unique definition of ownership: "the right to deny use". I disagree strongly. To me, ownership is the right not to be deprived of something rightfully possessed. And let me clarify. By something, I mean some object with a physical existence; something which can be stolen and then you don't have it any more. Not ideas; not expressions. You can generate those, but you can't own them. If you could own them, you could lose them, but there is no power on earth that can deprive you of your ideas and expressions. Other people can USE or SHARE your ideas and expressions, but the idea they can deprive you of them is nonsense.
Making a livelihood from ideas and expressions that you generated yourself is a completely different matter from ownership, and needs to be addressed differently.
I am afraid it's just another example of stupid people or people with an agenda corrupting the language. If enough stupid people, or people with an agenda, misuse a word, the stupid usage becomes just another definition. The dictionary isn't defining the language; it's just describing de facto usage. It's sad, but I don't know how we can fix that.
You have proved it is possible for some people to read a reasoned argument why the term you are using is utter nonsense, and completely ignore the point.
OK, you've got my attention. "Breaking the law" and "being found guilty" are not the same thing. If the law says "don't murder anyone" and you murder someone, you are violating (breaking) the law whether or not you are ever caught and convicted.
As long as you comply with the terms of the GPL, you can call it chopped liver and charge as much as you want for it. But you have to comply with the terms of the GPL, and one of those terms is that you include the original copyright notice, and that you offer all the source code at no cost beyond reasonable copying charges.
After all, what do you think Ubuntu does? They take Debian, make some changes, call it something else, and make it available. The "making some changes" part is not magic. You can imagine that the changes are reduced progressively until the only change is the name, and the same principle applies.
IANAL. If I was actually going to do something like this, I would of course make a formal evaluation of the terms of the license. It would be interesting to hear exactly how this is wrong, if somebody can back it up.
What possesses a distro to do this? Sure, the name SHOULD be a minor thing, but it isn't really minor.
Springdale/PUIAS, man. The RHEL clone without the huffing and puffing.
Funny, I was never at any point in my life tempted to say that about any of the erosions of my guaranteed rights. Maybe because I have never been a naive fool.
Nationalized healthcare solves this problem. For-profit corporations have no business in health insurance.
What a trusting soul. Such mystical faith in the State. Psssst