Following up on this, would it be possible for Canonical to give
official confirmation that it is permissible for individuals and
projects to distribute modified versions of Ubuntu, with
Canonical-trademarked content such as the Ubuntu name and logo included
and even used in some fashion as part of the project's branding,
provided these projects are very clearly marked as "Ubuntu remixes" in
a highly conspicuous fashion? For instance, would an unofficial modified
version of Ubuntu distributed under a name such as "Ubuntu Qubes Remix"
or "Ubuntu Remix for Qubes OS" be acceptable? This would be consistent
with what existing Ubuntu remixes are doing, and what the Ubuntu
community has been encouraging.
Thanks for taking a look at this :)
--
Aaron Rainbolt
Ubuntu Community Council Member
https://github.com/ArrayBolt3
https://launchpad.net/~arraybolt3
@arraybolt3:ubuntu.com on Matrix, arraybolt3 on Libera and OFTC
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 15:59:34 -0500
Aaron Rainbolt <arraybolt3@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Casting a somewhat wide net with this email since this is an issue
> that potentially affects a lot of projects related to Ubuntu,
> including projects developed by Canonical staff and other notable
> community members.
>
> In the past, Canonical has appeared to allow, and the Ubuntu community
> has actively encouraged, the distribution of unofficial modified
> versions of Ubuntu typically known as "remixes". These remixes
> typically use the official Ubuntu repositories, but add additional
> third-party repos provided by the remix creator, either self-hosted
> repos or Personal Package Archives (PPAs). While the remixes do
> clarify their status by calling themselves remixes, they typically
> use Ubuntu's official (trademarked) branding in one form or another.
> These remixes are not, and do not pretend to be, official Ubuntu
> images, but they are a valuable part of the Ubuntu community, as
> remixes allow people to do things with Ubuntu that haven't been or
> can't be done with official Ubuntu images (i.e. providing Ubuntu with
> a pre-configured SwayWM experience), and at least in recent times
> they have acted as the gateway for a developer to create a new Ubuntu
> flavor (with developers distributing their variants of Ubuntu as
> remixes for a development cycle or several, then bringing those
> remixes into compliance with Ubuntu's flavor requirements before
> being officially accepted as a new flavor).
>
> While it's the understanding of the Ubuntu community at large that
> remixes that operate this way are perfectly fine (to the point where
> at least one individual who is now a flavor lead referred to "remix
> codename rules" which AFAIK don't actually exist [1]), there doesn't
> appear to be any well-documented rules that explain that this is how
> things work. To the contrary, Canonical's intellectual property rights
> policy [2] suggests that the entire way in which remixes work is, at
> best, a gray area, and at worst, completely disallowed. One
> particularly worrying paragraph reads:
>
> > 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. This does not affect your rights under any open source
> > licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu. If you need
> > us to approve, certify or provide modified versions for
> > redistribution you will require a licence agreement from Canonical,
> > for which you may be required to pay. For further information,
> > please contact us (as set out below).
>
> This is potentially a problem for some existing Ubuntu remixes, such
> as Ubuntu Sway Remix [3], Ubuntu Asahi [4], Ubuntu DDE [5], and maybe
> even the Ubuntu concept images for ARM hardware [6] [7]. It's unclear
> if any of these projects are allowed to exist with their current name
> and branding in light of the IP policy. At the same time, it seems
> very unlikely that it is Canonical's wish to make any of these
> projects cease operation or force them to entirely rebrand,
> especially since the concept images and Ubuntu Asahi are both being
> worked on (at least in part) by Canonical employees.
>
> Despite the fact that within the Ubuntu project, the legitimacy and
> acceptance of Ubuntu remixes is well-known, it is not so well-known
> outside of the Ubuntu project. For instance, Qubes OS (a
> security-focused, virtual-machine-centric Linux distribution I
> regularly use and contribute to) currently offers support for
> lightweight Ubuntu virtual machines tailored to integrate with Qubes
> as a whole, but they do not distribute these virtual machines to
> end-users directly, for fear of legal action being taken against them
> by Canonical. Instead, they offer support for Ubuntu in their build
> software, and require that users who want to use Ubuntu on Qubes OS
> build the Ubuntu VMs themselves, which the IP policy explicitly allows
> when it says "You can make changes to Ubuntu for your own personal use
> or for your organisation's own internal use." This is a legally safe
> strategy for the Qubes development team to use, but it dramatically
> reduces the accessibility of Ubuntu on the Qubes OS platform, as the
> Qubes build software is very complicated and requires a user to be
> very technically skilled to make use of it. [8] I would go so far as
> to say this restriction makes it impossible for anyone except Qubes OS
> developers and a very small group of enthusiasts to have a decent
> Ubuntu experience on Qubes OS.
>
> The VMs built by Qubes OS's build software are, in essence, exactly
> what most remixes today are - they use the Ubuntu repositories at
> their core, they have a third party repo enabled that provides extra
> capabilities and some software from that repo installed, and that's
> it. It seems like Qubes OS should be able to distribute Ubuntu virtual
> machines directly if they make it clear that their images are not
> official Canonical products (for instance, by naming the OS in their
> images "Ubuntu Qubes Remix" or similar). That would resolve the
> current usability issues; no one would get confused into thinking
> Canonical or the Ubuntu community offered official support for the
> images, Qubes users could take advantage of the power and flexibility
> of Ubuntu while still getting the security benefits of the Qubes
> platform, and everyone would be happy. These images would not be able
> to eventually become Ubuntu flavors, as the Qubes development team
> needs to be able to release security updates to their packages
> packages very quickly to deliver the experience they wish to offer
> their users, but I don't see any reason why a remix having to stay a
> remix should disqualify it from calling itself a remix.
>
> In light of all the above, I would like to request that some official
> Canonical-provided documentation clarify that one *can* distribute
> modified versions of Ubuntu that retain some of Ubuntu's branding,
> provided that these versions of Ubuntu call themselves remixes or
> otherwise make it abundantly clear to the end-user that the modified
> image is not provided or supported by Canonical or official Ubuntu
> support channels. If there are additional restrictions a remix has to
> obey, it would be good to clarify those too so that both existing and
> new remixes don't run afoul of any rules in their mission to make the
> Ubuntu ecosystem even better.
>
> Thanks for your consideration, and have a great day!
>
> --
> Aaron Rainbolt
> Ubuntu Community Council Member
> https://github.com/ArrayBolt3
> https://launchpad.net/~arraybolt3
> @arraybolt3:ubuntu.com on Matrix, arraybolt3 on Libera and OFTC
>
> [1]
> https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/flavour-guidelines-runtu-a-remix-a-flavour-or-a-fraud/11828
> [2] https://canonical.com/legal/intellectual-property-policy
> [3] https://github.com/Ubuntu-Sway
> [4] https://ubuntuasahi.org/
> [5] https://ubuntudde.com/
> [6]
> https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/status-of-ubuntu-support-for-lenovo-thinkpad-x13s/44652
> [7]
> https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-concept-snapdragon-x-elite/48800
> [8] https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-builderv2
