Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: I wrote a Slack compatible server. Can I open source it?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: Ask HN: I wrote a Slack compatible server. Can I open source it?

#51

Post by cookiecaper »

cmdrfred wrote: post #23
glesica wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Makes sense, then maybe this would prevent him from listing slack anywhere on the repository as it might confuse users that this is a legitimate client.

It's a matter of degree. CentOS infamously chose to refer to Red Hat as "a prominent North American Linux vendor" and completely deleted the term "Red Hat" from everything out of an abundance of caution after receiving threats from Red Hat's lawyers, but that's probably overboard. It's generally allowed to use trademarks as "nominative uses", i.e., in direct reference to another's product that's not designed to create confusion. He would probably be fine to put in his README something like "An open implementation of the chat API provided by Slack". He definitely shouldn't use the term "Slack" in the name of the repo.

Like most non-flagrant potential IP violations, no one can really say for sure until a court hears the case and makes a judgement as to whether the use is fair or unfair, or likely to cause confusion among consumers or not.

IANAL.

Re: Ask HN: I wrote a Slack compatible server. Can I open source it?

#52

Post by gergles »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #35

In general, re-implementing a software product from open specifications has been protected by the courts. There are numerous examples, from the original IBM BIOS to Microsoft BASIC to PostGres and BSD Unix. That said, the Google case is casting a shadow on programatic APIs, but 'look and feel' are essentially fair game. What are protected and protectable are Trademarks. So using the word 'Slack' in the name or anythi…

Can you share more info on the "Open Trello" thing? I didn't hear about that and it sounds interesting to see how it was resolved.

Re: Ask HN: I wrote a Slack compatible server. Can I open source it?

#53

Post by shabble »

teacup50 wrote: post #28
cmdrfred wrote: post #12

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?

This is something Apple does in their 'DSMOS' (don't steal Mac OS X) code (but they use copyright, not a 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 If you shipped a transparently Mac-compatible x86 machine, you'd have to inc…

Cute. I remember some anti-spam outfit trying to "protect" emails with a copyrighted poem in the headers: http://www.oblomovka.com/writing/habeas%3A_the_antispam_haik...

I wonder how far back in OS(X) it dates?

Re: Ask HN: I wrote a Slack compatible server. Can I open source it?

#54

Post by vsync »

masukomi wrote: post #29
dsr_ wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

to extend on that idea, I'm fairly certain that a "clean-room" reverse engineering of a competitor's product HAS been shown to be legal. That is to say, as long as you can prove that the person(s) doing the reverse engineering didn't have any access to proprietary information about the workings of the product they were reverse engineering.

Which is why the appeals court decision was so shocking.

Re: Ask HN: I wrote a Slack compatible server. Can I open source it?

#55

Post by teacup50 »

shabble wrote: post #53
teacup50 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something Apple does in their 'DSMOS' (don't steal Mac OS X) code (but they use copyright, not a 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 If you shipped a transparently Mac-compatible x86 machine, you'd have to inc…

Cute. I remember some anti-spam outfit trying to "protect" emails with a copyrighted poem in the headers: http://www.oblomovka.com/writing/habeas%3A_the_antispam_haik... I wonder how far back in OS(X) it dates?

It was introduced as part of the Intel transition, prior to public release.

Internally, Mac OS X ran on commodity PCs for quite some time before that and didn't include DSMOS.

Re: Ask HN: I wrote a Slack compatible server. Can I open source it?

#56

Post by jakejake »

kaolinite wrote: post #3

I'd do it, but keep the references to Slack to a minimum. So, don't call it "OpenSlack", for example. Just give it a nice name, mention that it's Slack API compatible and you should be fine. At most, I suspect they'll just C&D you and then you say sorry and take it down. I can't imagine you'll get in any trouble. Not a lawyer though.

I'd agree with that except the part about mentioning Slack compatibility. I wouldn't mention Slack at all without their permission.

Since the OP says that this is for another project, they might get not only a C&D for the chat code, but the original project might be infringing as well. Even if it's not actually infringing, it might result in some legal fees.

Re: Ask HN: I wrote a Slack compatible server. Can I open source it?

#57

Post by toomuchtodo »

gergles wrote: post #52
ChuckMcM wrote: post #35

In general, re-implementing a software product from open specifications has been protected by the courts. There are numerous examples, from the original IBM BIOS to Microsoft BASIC to PostGres and BSD Unix. That said, the Google case is casting a shadow on programatic APIs, but 'look and feel' are essentially fair game. What are protected and protectable are Trademarks. So using the word 'Slack' in the name or anythi…

Can you share more info on the "Open Trello" thing? I didn't hear about that and it sounds interesting to see how it was resolved.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8936701

https://github.com/libreboard/libreboard

https://github.com/libreboard/libreboard/issues/92

Re: Ask HN: I wrote a Slack compatible server. Can I open source it?

#58

Post by tracker1 »

ohitsdom wrote: post #43
joeyspn wrote: post #14

What technologies did you use? XMPP? Node? ... I don't think your are infringing any copyright as long as you are not making profit from it. Reverse Engineering is legal, specially when done with the aim of interoperability... and what you are seeking is an interoperable server right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality

Profitability has nothing to do with determining copyright infringement. For example, if I made a soda called Coke+ and gave it away for free, I'd still be infringing.

That's not copyright infringement it's trademark infringement... In this case if the author were to prominently mention Slack, then they might also be afowl of trademark.

Beyond that, there's still some gray area, legally speaking, with concern to the API interfaces themselves being either patentable or copyright... not even just the documentation of.

Re: Ask HN: I wrote a Slack compatible server. Can I open source it?

#59

Post by tzs »

desdiv wrote: post #8
lmm wrote: post #4

APIs themselves aren't copyrightable, as we saw in Google's recent lawsuit. The documentation is though, so be sure you're not infringing on that. Any license agreement you or your company have with Slack might "ban" you from doing this; you might e.g. lose your access. That will be a contractual matter between you and them though, not anything criminal. IANAL; you should probably get actual legal advice.

>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...

That cases raises an interesting precedent issue that I have not been able to find the answer to. Let's assume that the Supreme Court decides not to take the appeal, so the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable stands.

What courts is this precedent for?

Generally, the way precedent works is that if appeals from court X go to court Y, then the decisions of court Y are precedent for court X. If court Z is not on the appeals path from X, then the decisions of court Z are not binding precedent for X.

For copyright cases, appeals normally do NOT go to the CAFC. They go the Courts of Appeal for the circuit in which the court appealed from resides. E.g., copyright cases from district courts in the 2nd Circuit go to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

In general, that is the appeals path from the Federal district court. Copyright cases aren't specifically singled out.

Oracle vs. Google was tried in the 9th Circuit. If it has just been a copyright case, the appeal would have went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, it was also a patent case, and patent cases are singled out. They are explicitly diverted from the normal appeals path and go to the CAFC. If the case is also some other kind of case, such as a copyright case or an antitrust case, the CAFC is allowed to hear those aspects too.

So does this mean that if P sues D in the 9th circuit over copyright, with no patent issues or any other issues that would bring the appeal to the CAFC, then the district court would only use the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for precedent (which I believe disagrees with CAFC), and ignore CAFC's Google vs. Oracle copyright ruling?

Even more confusing, suppose P sues D over copyright and patents in the 9th Circuit. The district court figures that the case, if appealed, will go to the CAFC, and so follows CAFC precedent for the copyright aspects. Now suppose after the court rules, neither party appeals the court's decisions on any of the patent issues. The only appeal copyright issues. Does the case still go to CAFC? Or does it go the 9th Circuit? If it goes to the 9th Circuit, do they apply their own copyright precedent or CAFC precedent?

Post reply on HN