Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more."
And yes it says in explaining freedom 2 & 3:
"The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. "
But I argue being required to remove Canonical/Ubuntu legally protected artifacts does not in anyway "effectively hamper" someone from releasing their changes.
But regardless, so what? Calling them out won't change anything. When does that ever work? They've crafted a justification. The only way to get them to change is stop using Ubuntu.
From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
"Rules about packaging and distribution details
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more."
And yes it says in explaining freedom 2 & 3:
"The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. "
But I argue being required to remove Canonical/Ubuntu legally protected artifacts does not in anyway "effectively hamper" someone from releasing their changes.
But regardless, so what? Calling them out won't change anything. When does that ever work? They've crafted a justification. The only way to get them to change is stop using Ubuntu.