Ubuntu tells the story as a "Trademark" and thinks it is harmful to open source.

Open-source advocates are keen to call for patent and copyright reform, but completely ignore the trademark issue. The trademark is fundamentally contrary to the Freedom advertised by open source. The author of Ubuntu's guide UbuntuPocketGuideandReference has encountered such problems. The employees of Canonical, a developer of Ubuntu release, had a friendly discussion with him, it is pointed out that there are no restrictions on the use of trademarks in community projects (although some rules need to be followed), but commercial use must apply for a trademark license. Work

Open-source advocates are keen to call for patent and copyright reform, but completely ignore the trademark issue. The trademark is fundamentally contrary to the Freedom advertised by open source.

The author of Ubuntu Pocket Guide and Reference has encountered such problems. Employees of Canonical, a developer of Ubuntu release, had a friendly discussion with him, it is pointed out that there are no restrictions on the use of trademarks in community projects (although some rules need to be followed), but commercial use must apply for a trademark license.

As a result, the author raised the question that trademarks are harmful to Open Source: even in the Linux community, trademarks are like patents or copyrights that impede commercial use... should open source work like this? Restrictions on re-release? Strictly control who can compile the software and who can still use its proprietary name ?... The trademark is almost completely incompatible with the freedom of open source.

A trademark severely limits all activities of a specific product. If an open-source company believes in a trademark, it accepts this idea. On the one hand, it advocates freedom, on the other hand, it wants to take away freedom.