Canonical is attempting to use copyright law to enforce its trademark policy, at least according to mjg59. If you only work with upstream sources, that isn't a problem, but redistributing binaries is an important use case, especially with Docker.

> Canonical assert that the act of compilation creates copyright over the binaries, and you may not redistribute those binaries unless (a) the license prevents Canonical from restricting redistribution (eg, the GPL), or (b) you follow the terms of their IP policy. This means that, no matter what Dustin's blogpost says, Canonical's position is that you must ask for permission before distributing any custom container images that contain Ubuntu binaries, even if you use no Ubuntu trademarks in the process. Doing so without their permission is an infringement of their copyright.

https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/37113.html

Canonical asserting that the act of compilation creates copyright over the binaries doesn't make that statement true, and IANAL but I don't think there's sufficient evidence that it's likely to be true either - it's not a derived work - it is the work, so the same license as applies to the work would apply.

Compilation copyrights exist and are very light copyrights. The viability of their claim i sadly can't talk about[1], but i can tell you what it would actually protect is very small. It's basically only what they add to it (and they must add something to have a valid compilation copyright). To quote the copyright act:

"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

So yeah.

[1] Sorry. Once legal things that have an impact on the company i work for reach a certain point, I can no longer safely discuss them. I can tell you what the copyright act says, which is:

A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.

I'll let others be the judge of whether what they do by compiling things into binaries meets the minimum standards to create an original work of authorship.

I'm not sure the legal rules around "compilation" (collections of poems) can be applied to a totally different issue, compilation of software from source to binary with a standard process. They don't have much in common except for the word.

What if they use a custom process so that the binary with the standard process will be a "little" bit different? Actually both used the same source, but a different set of tooling, maybe even a special plugin for clang to get ubuntu.com somewhere into the binary file. is the binary still copyright fee or isn't it? actually what if it is gpl, does gpl also mean, that the compiler needs to be gpl? what if the compiler adds something, i.e. a ubuntu trademark? I mean i could even sell the binary. i just need to give the source since gpl only applies to the source level, the question about the packaged file is actually left out and I don't think I could resell it without recompilation if somebody copyrights 'his' binary.

And what if I then replaced all of the ubuntu strings and images in the binary package? You raise some good points. It's definitely a nuanced issue.

Would it help if the distribution was all in compiling tools and the source code and some scripts that will build the tools upon download on the recipient's end?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11047390

What you're saying makes perfect sense, but law is weird. I would probably talk to a lawyer before assuming that something technically obvious is actually interpreted correctly by existing law.

Sure, if we were all flush companies then filing suit over things like this or risking lawsuits when we know we are correct would be perfectly reasonable. But when you don't have the money or time to fight legal battle -- even one you think you should win -- you have to appeal to the court of public opinion instead.

As my first lawyer explained to me, the important question isn't whether you are in the right and will eventually win the lawsuit. It's whether you can afford to go the distance.

Lawsuits are painful, expensive, and enormously stress-inducing. And if you can't afford to fight one, then you get all that plus a loss.

If you'd like developers to feel bold about this, one way to encourage that would be to put together a legal defense fund with deep enough pockets that developers aren't too worried. Because from the individual developer perspective, there's a big difference between the rest of the planet telling Canonical no and it just being them on their own.

It is more logical and an entirely proper response to ignore them.

But this is pointing out that Ubuntu would be hurt if developers took them seriously. Especially as they rely on others code that has Ubuntu-tailored functionality. So Ubuntu can only hope that we don't start to take them seriously.

I rather believe that OP is attempting to exclude Ubuntu by mimicking the same knee-jerk reactions they have. I see this totally positively, since Ubuntu's behavior prevents the easy reuse of the OSS they write. Next step is to make upstream difficult to merge with Ubuntu ;)

But where's the evidence that Canonical actually even said anything like that?

While it may be a viable strategy for individuals, it's pretty much a non-viable strategy for companies to just ignore this :)