First, this violation only implies certain distribution of images, what you fail to mention completely. "Canonical insist that you must ask them for permission to distribute it" is a false statement. Personal and internal use is excluded completely and are always permitted.
Second, you state "The only alternative is to rebuild every binary package you wish to ship[1], removing all trademarks in the process." Again a false statement. Canonical has made it crystal clear that a solution using overlayfs on top of the official ubuntu image is 100% legit and as such always permitted.
Yet your title reads "Your Ubuntu-based container image is probably a copyright violation", which is simply untrue, a big generalization, and FUD. IMHO your personal quest damages the FOSS world more than the things you are writing about.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at nvidia. Ex-biologist. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon and Bluesky.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Is that so ?
Date: 2015-07-29 01:47 pm (UTC)Second, you state "The only alternative is to rebuild every binary package you wish to ship[1], removing all trademarks in the process." Again a false statement. Canonical has made it crystal clear that a solution using overlayfs on top of the official ubuntu image is 100% legit and as such always permitted.
Yet your title reads "Your Ubuntu-based container image is probably a copyright violation", which is simply untrue, a big generalization, and FUD. IMHO your personal quest damages the FOSS world more than the things you are writing about.