I get that the first name implies being associated to official “Arch”, but still, is it really just a “for”?

Can you access archlinux.org?

yea i can ping it

That’s not what I asked.

umm i am actually chrooting into the partition as i had grub-rescue

You need to be able to reach this: https://archlinux.org/mirrors/status/json/

Configure your network prior chrooting

ok

no more gui

is that

comic sans neue?

This is not Arch and off topic

How long before we get a swarm of people asking for help.

good news

they used arch trademark illegally

Yes, but the project itself was ok

The maintainer decided to discontinue it

He could’ve just renamed and that’s it

yes, they just rename to arka linux

Yes, but that was not the only issue. On their website they claimed that was “vanilla” Arch when in fact they had their own repos.

I find it funny that people are taking that guy’s side and running with it, and nobody bothered to even ask anyone on Arch what really happened.

What’s funny to me is people in the comment section claiming stopping trademark violations infringes on the principle of open source

It’s tragic, actually. But not surprising.

Why would they go through the trouble of having custom repos?

Doesn’t make sense to me.

At a guess, probably the “It’s my wheelhouse, I can do what i want with it” logic

Even if they did not had custom repos, the installation would still be unsupported. And there’s also the trademark infringement issue.

But as I’ve said, the project itself was ok. Now, for the reasons why, when confronted with renaming (and loosing the “Arch” in the name), one can only guess or ask the maintainer. I watched an interview of him and I still don’t buy his reasons. But that’s me.

At the end of the day, if you’re willing to infringe on a trademark for the publicity factor, the actual reasons probably aren’t kosher and will be kept to themselves.

It’s weird how “GUI installer for Arch” doesn’t violate any trademarks but “Arch GUI Installer” does.

I get that the first name implies being associated to official “Arch”, but still, is it really just a “for”?

Most people [should] know that the guy who made that GUI Installer tool isn’t associated with Arch.

It’s Arch’s trademark policy

it could’ve as well prohibit both

The “should” is doing most of the heavy lifting here. They don’t.

Like what Mozilla did?

“You can’t call your forked/changed versions Firefox”?

Well that created friction, Debian had to package vanilla Firefox under a different name for many years.

Isn’t this now falling more into how trademark law is enforced/interpreted?

Technically, the patched Firefox wasn’t Firefox, so that’s why they didn’t want it to be called Firefox.

Like how an Arch with third-party repos isn’t really Arch…