[arch-general] Arch Linux trademark and docker images

[Sascha Shaw]

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