21–30 of 59 posts
If you do open source it, don't use Slack in the name
Recall CentOS before RedHat was brought back into the fold. RedHat was always referred to as PNAELV, a "Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor" to avoid running afoul of trademark issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>APIs themselves aren't copyrightable, as we saw in Google's recent lawsuit. The most recent ruling said that APIs, by themselves, are copyrightable[0]. The case is back to the district court now to determine whether the wholesale copying and reimplementation an API falls under the fair-use defense. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google...
Can't they use something trademarked in the api? for example you have to send 'Slack chat connect' to connect the api so open source stuff can't connect without violating their trademark?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't they use something trademarked in the api? for example you have to send 'Slack chat connect' to connect the api so open source stuff can't connect without violating their trademark?
AFAIK trademarks don't work that way. You can "use" a trademark in a text or computer program more or less freely. What you can't do is do business under the trademarked name, or offer a competing (or substantially similar) product for sale that uses the trademarked name. Trademarks aren't so much about "IP protection" as they are about preventing consumer confusion, thus the standards are different. IANAL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't they use something trademarked in the api? for example you have to send 'Slack chat connect' to connect the api so open source stuff can't connect without violating their trademark?
AFAIK trademarks don't work that way. You can "use" a trademark in a text or computer program more or less freely. What you can't do is do business under the trademarked name, or offer a competing (or substantially similar) product for sale that uses the trademarked name. Trademarks aren't so much about "IP protection" as they are about preventing consumer confusion, thus the standards are different. IANAL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>APIs themselves aren't copyrightable, as we saw in Google's recent lawsuit. The most recent ruling said that APIs, by themselves, are copyrightable[0]. The case is back to the district court now to determine whether the wholesale copying and reimplementation an API falls under the fair-use defense. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google...
Depressing indeed. Are there any other open source projects that are API compatible with a proprietary product/service? Is it ethical? I feel like it is but would be interested to hear HN's opinion.
For one, the jurisdiction that you're in is critical, for another the process is in some cases as important as the end result.
You should consult a lawyer that you pay for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>APIs themselves aren't copyrightable, as we saw in Google's recent lawsuit. The most recent ruling said that APIs, by themselves, are copyrightable[0]. The case is back to the district court now to determine whether the wholesale copying and reimplementation an API falls under the fair-use defense. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google...
Can't they use something trademarked in the api? for example you have to send 'Slack chat connect' to connect the api so open source stuff can't connect without violating their trademark?
Mac OS X looks for a set of firmware variables containing a non-formatted version of following haiku (reproduced for the purpose of artistic comment):
our hard work
by these words guarded
please dont steal
© Apple Computer Inc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depressing indeed. Are there any other open source projects that are API compatible with a proprietary product/service? Is it ethical? I feel like it is but would be interested to hear HN's opinion.
A blackbox implementation (no access to original source code) is clearly ethical. The purpose of an API is specifically to allow interoperability with software that you don't write; the presence of a competitor (open source or not) who re-implements the server side of your API is a Good Thing for a competitive market place.
IANAL but I don't think API compatibility is infringement[1]. At least, I've seen projects that advertise this as a feature - for example, errbit[2] is API-compatible with Airbrake. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interf... [2]: https://github.com/errbit/errbit