![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mjg59Update: A Canonical employee responded here, but doesn't appear to actually contradict anything I say below.
I wrote about Canonical's Ubuntu IP policy here, but primarily in terms of its broader impact, but I mentioned a few specific cases. People seem to have picked up on the case of container images (especially Docker ones), so here's an unambiguous statement:
If you generate a container image that is not a 100% unmodified version of Ubuntu (ie, you have not removed or added anything), Canonical insist that you must ask them for permission to distribute it. The only alternative is to rebuild every binary package you wish to ship[1], removing all trademarks in the process. As I mentioned in my original post, the IP policy does not merely require you to remove trademarks that would cause infringement, it requires you to remove all trademarks - a strict reading would require you to remove every instance of the word "ubuntu" from the packages.
If you want to contact Canonical to request permission, you can do so here. Or you could just derive from Debian instead.
[1] Other than ones whose license explicitly grants permission to redistribute binaries and which do not permit any additional restrictions to be imposed upon the license grants - so any GPLed material is fine
I wrote about Canonical's Ubuntu IP policy here, but primarily in terms of its broader impact, but I mentioned a few specific cases. People seem to have picked up on the case of container images (especially Docker ones), so here's an unambiguous statement:
If you generate a container image that is not a 100% unmodified version of Ubuntu (ie, you have not removed or added anything), Canonical insist that you must ask them for permission to distribute it. The only alternative is to rebuild every binary package you wish to ship[1], removing all trademarks in the process. As I mentioned in my original post, the IP policy does not merely require you to remove trademarks that would cause infringement, it requires you to remove all trademarks - a strict reading would require you to remove every instance of the word "ubuntu" from the packages.
If you want to contact Canonical to request permission, you can do so here. Or you could just derive from Debian instead.
[1] Other than ones whose license explicitly grants permission to redistribute binaries and which do not permit any additional restrictions to be imposed upon the license grants - so any GPLed material is fine
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 07:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 07:43 am (UTC)Remember, by default everything is copyrighted to its respective author. As a recipient, you only have fair use rights to make and/or distribute copies. The only reason you can make as many copies as you want of Ubuntu (or GPLd works, or works under other Free licenses) is that they come with a copyright license which allows you to make copies - provided you adhere to the other conditions in the license.
As per the GPL: "However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so."
So, if the copyright license says "you can only make copies if a) they are *identical* to the original, or b) if you remove *all* references to Ubuntu and recompile everything from sources yourself" and you fail to honour that, then you're in breach of copyright.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 05:53 pm (UTC)There's a lot of irrelevant ifs in here. Canonical does not have a license that states anything like this. They do however own the 'Ubuntu' trademark. This is entirely a trademark violation, copyright has nothing to do with it.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-22 06:32 am (UTC)