Hi there,
I just stumbled on the following [1] blog post, which says that shipping ubuntu docker images with modifications (e.g. web app, etc.) might be a violation of trademarks. I was wondering wether this also applies to arch linux, since the trademark policy [2] is derived from ubuntu somehow. Especially if you use aur packages inside the container, the trademark policy insists on a trademark license. I found some packages [3] that include aur packages.
The FSF started a dialog with Canonical in order to allow such customization based on ubuntu. [4] Am I right with my assumption, that docker images with aur packages need a trademark license? Would it be a possibility to change the policy in oder to allow such works as docker images with aur packages?
Regards, Christoph
--- [1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/36312.html [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:TrademarkPolicy [3] https://registry.hub.docker.com/search?q=arch&searchfield= [4] https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms
On 21.07.2015 12:56, Christoph Seitz wrote:
Hi there,
I just stumbled on the following [1] blog post, which says that shipping ubuntu docker images with modifications (e.g. web app, etc.) might be a violation of trademarks. I was wondering wether this also applies to arch linux, since the trademark policy [2] is derived from ubuntu somehow. Especially if you use aur packages inside the container, the trademark policy insists on a trademark license. I found some packages [3] that include aur packages.
The FSF started a dialog with Canonical in order to allow such customization based on ubuntu. [4] Am I right with my assumption, that docker images with aur packages need a trademark license? Would it be a possibility to change the policy in oder to allow such works as docker images with aur packages?
Regards, Christoph
[1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/36312.html [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:TrademarkPolicy [3] https://registry.hub.docker.com/search?q=arch&searchfield= [4] https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms
Hello Christoph,
the Arch trademark policy does not automatically update with the Ubuntu policy. The policy is, unless revoked, the one you linked as [2].
The Arch policy states the following:
Products which include very invasive changes, such as a new kernel, the inclusion of packages which are not part of the Arch Linux repositories, or anything else that significantly impacts the technical quality or user experience would fall into this category are unlikely to be approved. (Note that if you are including packages which are not part of the Arch Linux repositories, we encourage you to work within the community processes, such as the Arch User Repository (AUR) to submit and maintain those packages within the community repositories in order to minimise this issue.)
This is ambiguous enough to make AUR packages a non-issue. I'm no lawyer, but I cannot clearly see the difference between "Arch Linux repository" and "Arch User Repository", especially under the statement, that this would "minimise the issue".
Looking at your packages from [3], I'd say many of them are fine. They explicitly state what they are, for example "Arch Linux base running AUR compiled version of CouchPotato".
Regards
Sascha Shaw
arch-general@lists.archlinux.org