Talk:Arch-based distributions

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 15:15, 31 July 2018 by Svito (talk | contribs) (More historical detail: rm closed)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Previous page history can be found here.

Trademark infringements

I've removed the following projects from this article since they appear to misuse the Arch Linux trademark:

  • 3du Arch, [1]
  • ArchBang, [2], [3]
  • Arch Rescue Kit, [4]
  • Arch USB OS, [5]
  • ArchMerge, update
  • Arch Anywhere, update
  • Artix Linux
  • Happy Hacking Linux, [6]
  • Reborn OS, [7]on screenshots, *2017, previously Antergos Deepin
  • SwagArch
  • Zen Installer, [8] *2016, previously OBRevenge, Revenge OS

See [9] for the email I've sent on this regard to If I get a response that said distributions have authorization to use the Arch Linux trademark, they can be readded to this article. -- Alad (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Artix Linux[10] has now changed its tag-line from "Your Arch, your init" to "Your GNU/Linux, your init", and so, is no longer in violation of the TrademarkPolicy. The entry has been added back. —This unsigned comment is by Drumal (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2017‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
Thank you. -- Alad (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I've sent an email to 3du Arch, ArchBang, and Happy Hacking Linux developers to address this issue on their part. At what point should I contact, especially in more serious cases like Arch USB OS which may be possibly mistaken for official ISOs and be compromised? -- Svito (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Just send it to trademarks@ directly, it's their responsibility to deal with it. I guess you can CC the "developers" of the distros in question. -- Alad (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
ArchBang has now changed SourceForge page to use "based on Arch Linux" wording as well as clarified that trademarks belong to their respective owners on the forum description. Adding back the entry. -- Svito (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

SourceForge links intentional?

The Active section links SourceForge pages for distributions that have official websites on several occasions.

I think official websites are generally more informative / representative. Or are the SourceForge links there to simplify the detection of inactivity?

--Larivact (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It is intentional, see previous discussion. -- Svito (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I clarified the intro. --Larivact (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)