4 ms·
> is probably a copyright violation No, it's not. The relevant language (which this post cites) from the Canonical IP policy deals with trademarks, not copyrig
by morninj 11y ago
> is probably a copyright violation
No, it's not. The relevant language (which this post cites) from the Canonical IP policy deals with trademarks, not copyrights:
Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.
Canonical is trying to prevent third parties from passing off forks as genuine versions of Ubuntu. (Not that I agree with its approach, but that's what this language does.) Distributing a Docker image to your own web server doesn't "associate it with the Trademarks."
(edit: formatting)
- shadeslayer 11y agoAll Ubuntu packages contain the string "Ubuntu" in their version string, could entirely be considered copyright violation since you're shipping a trademark.
- mjg59 11y agoIf you're only distributing internally then you're fine, but that's because it's explicitly called out as permitted - the image is still associated with the trademarks.
- morninj 11y agoYou're confusing "distributing a copy of Ubuntu to run on a server you own" with "distributing a copy of Ubuntu for the public to download." The former is not a trademark violation. Nor does it violate the terms of the Canonical IP policy quoted above.
- mjg59 11y agoNo, I said that the former was explicitly permitted. Whether it violates the section of the policy you quoted is therefore irrelevant. But you appear to be asserting that the phrase "associate it with the Trademarks" has something to do with trademark law, which doesn't seem clear.