11–20 of 81 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
> If we had had bad intentions at that moment we could have still pursued the trademark at that time. Instead, we left the process to expire, leading to this official response from USPTO in September of the same year: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 “Status: Abandoned because the applicant failed to respond”. The actual rejection: https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 > The attached evidence from Weba…
Bytecode alliance is a non profit organisation whose members involve some of the tech giants involved in promoting WASM development. Bytecode alliance have developed their own open runtime.
It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer, or why they would be good stewards for a "Webassembly foundation". Their recent efforts with the closed source Webassembly Package Manager reek of trying to copy the npm business model: take commercial advantage of a non-commercial programming language.
If Wasmer want to be trusted they need to stop acting like they are official stewards of Webassembly. Focus more on building good WASM products than on pretending to be leaders.
You can even see (unattributed) supportive comments from Wasmer employees in this comments section. It just feels off.
> If we had had bad intentions at that moment we could have still pursued the trademark at that time. Instead, we left the process to expire, leading to this official response from USPTO in September of the same year: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 “Status: Abandoned because the applicant failed to respond”. The actual rejection: https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 > The attached evidence from Weba…
> Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below
As mentioned in the article, Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence and arguments in support of registration, but instead we left the process to expire, leading to the ABANDONMENT of the trademark.
Hope this makes things more clear!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The WAPM backend is closed-source for now. However, the API layer based on GraphQL and the CLI are completely open for anyone to use: https://registry.wapm.io/graphql https://github.com/wasmerio/wapm-cli If anyone wants to replicate the WebAssembly Package Manager locally please send me an email to syrus@wasmer.io so we can start a discussion around a potential open-source path for it :) EDIT: removed "for security r…
Closed source for security reasons? Do you mean it would not be secure if people were able to see the source?
For example, we might be using a dependency that is vulnerable to exploits or have an exploit in our own code that opens a security breach (hopefully not!).
As an open-source maintainer I like to open projects for which the code-quality is high, and this implies doing a deep and thorough review of the codebase before open-sourcing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Closed source for security reasons? Do you mean it would not be secure if people were able to see the source?
Open-source code is obviously easier to exploit than closed source one. But that doesn't imply necessarily the existence of security bugs. For example, we might be using a dependency that is vulnerable to exploits or have an exploit in our own code that opens a security breach (hopefully not!). As an open-source maintainer I like to open projects for which the code-quality is high, and this implies doing a deep and t…
It's hard to escape the feeling that Wasmer is trying to hijack Webassembly for their own commercial advantage. Bytecode alliance is a non profit organisation whose members involve some of the tech giants involved in promoting WASM development. Bytecode alliance have developed their own open runtime. It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer, or why they would be good stewards for a "We…
Not defending anything but competition is generally accepted to be a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open-source code is obviously easier to exploit than closed source one. But that doesn't imply necessarily the existence of security bugs. For example, we might be using a dependency that is vulnerable to exploits or have an exploit in our own code that opens a security breach (hopefully not!). As an open-source maintainer I like to open projects for which the code-quality is high, and this implies doing a deep and t…
Open-source code is not in fact easier to exploit than closed-source code is. Security and openness are mostly orthogonal.
Not sure if I agree with this. Obscure systems are usually harder to hack as they require an extra effort on discoverability that open systems don't have.
Easier to exploit != more exploitable. One is about the threshold to discover an exploit, the other is about the total exploitable bugs.
In my view, the "hackability level" is the same for both open and closed-source projects. Making something close it doesn't make it less hackeable, it just makes the threshold to discover bugs higher.
Also, one may argue that with open-source projects you may be able to fix more bugs since those are in the open and more people can report them (thus, more secure). I think it really depends on the contribution level and where the codebase is at to see if security might be a concern or not.
> Security and openness are mostly orthogonal.
But I mostly agree with this ;)
> If we had had bad intentions at that moment we could have still pursued the trademark at that time. Instead, we left the process to expire, leading to this official response from USPTO in September of the same year: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 “Status: Abandoned because the applicant failed to respond”. The actual rejection: https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 > The attached evidence from Weba…
The link provided is a non-final action (Feb 26, 2020) that can be rebated with further evidence, as stated by both the description of the reply (NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN) and the text: > Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the…
“Tried” is the operative word here though, no? What possible evidence could convince the USPTO to let a company trademark a name already in use for the same thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The link provided is a non-final action (Feb 26, 2020) that can be rebated with further evidence, as stated by both the description of the reply (NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN) and the text: > Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the…
> Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence “Tried” is the operative word here though, no? What possible evidence could convince the USPTO to let a company trademark a name already in use for the same thing?
Not sure, as we didn't tried to pursue further. Perhaps there was a way to get the trademark, or perhaps there wasn't (no idea, really... and I guess we will never know! although a negative answer is the most probable one).
But there are other examples such as Javascript owned by Oracle, where they didn't create the technology but they owned the trademark, so it's definitely possible [1]