Talk:Arch-based distributions

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 20:36, 23 September 2019 by Svito (talk | contribs) (→‎New Distros: rm closed)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Read this first

  • Previous page history can be found at [1].
  • Sourceforge links are intentional, see [2].

-- The ArchWiki Administrators 15:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Trademark infringements

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

  • 3du Arch, [3]
  • ArchBang, [4], [5]
  • Arch Rescue Kit, [6]
  • Arch USB OS, [7]
  • ArchMan, [8]
  • ArchMerge, update
  • Arch Anywhere, update
  • Artix Linux
  • Happy Hacking Linux, [9]
  • Reborn OS, [10]on screenshots, *2017, previously Antergos Deepin
  • SwagArch
  • Zen Installer, [11] *2016, previously OBRevenge, Revenge OS

See [12] 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[13] 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)


Wouldn't it make more sense to prefer Wikipedia links over SourceForge links if the intention is to avoid marketing these other distributions? SourceForge pages are managed by the distributions themselves and no one else. Wikipedia pages, like ArchWiki pages, are managed by neutral third parties as well as the distributions themselves. Moreover, Wikipedia provides information about the latest release of a distribution at the top of its page making maintenance easy. All-in-all, it seems that Wikipedia is *better* than SourceForge at addressing the points mentioned in [14].

I'd also like to bring attention to the fact that, unlike Wikipedia, SourceForge is a for-profit venture. They have done horrible things in the past like injecting adware into popular open-source projects like GIMP and Firefox [15]. While it appears they are under new management as of late last year, I still feel more comfortable linking users to websites which don't have a financial incentive to take advantage of them.

With that, I propose that we amend the preference for SourceForge links to a preference for Wikipedia links. Alternatively, I propose that we at least prefer Wikipedia links to SourceForge links to homepage links. Any objections? Amendments? Comments?

-- Cosmo (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Almost none of these have Wikipedia articles. --Larivact (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
It is up for those projects to decide to use or not use SourceForge for hosting their files. We could have used regular website links if they weren't so filled with subjective opinions and catchphrases. -- Svito (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)