The article explains why it's important to trademark, but not how or more importantly if it makes sense for the majority of open source projects. If you need to hire a lawyer over several months to get a trademark, it's probably only possible for companies that also publish open source software.
Why trademark Open Source software
11–20 of 45 posts
Re: Why trademark Open Source software
#12Fully agree. Some distros are packaging my software with bad patches constantly and then ignore requests to rename the package to make it clear that it's a fork. Unfortunately for small projects registering a trademark is just not feasible. I have considered going from actual open source to source available though.
Issues like these are really what make me feel so bummed about open source. I can see it's enormous impact in the 90s quelling a lot of corporate greed, but now it's to the point that nobody respects the work put in anymore.
Re: Why trademark Open Source software
#13Fully agree. Some distros are packaging my software with bad patches constantly and then ignore requests to rename the package to make it clear that it's a fork. Unfortunately for small projects registering a trademark is just not feasible. I have considered going from actual open source to source available though.
GPLv3 allows adding a clause that would force them to change the name if they make changes. If they do it anyway they're in violation of the license, no trademark required.
Re: Why trademark Open Source software
#14The article explains why it's important to trademark, but not how or more importantly if it makes sense for the majority of open source projects. If you need to hire a lawyer over several months to get a trademark, it's probably only possible for companies that also publish open source software.
It can actually be rather cheap (as far as lawyers go). Mine cost about $2k per TM which includes USPTO fees.
It will depend on prior art, how close you are to others, how large the search needs to be, how many classes you are applying for.
Re: Why trademark Open Source software
#15Fully agree. Some distros are packaging my software with bad patches constantly and then ignore requests to rename the package to make it clear that it's a fork. Unfortunately for small projects registering a trademark is just not feasible. I have considered going from actual open source to source available though.
GPLv3 allows adding a clause that would force them to change the name if they make changes. If they do it anyway they're in violation of the license, no trademark required.
Do you happen to have a link with more info on how such a clause would look like? That sounds really interesting.
Re: Why trademark Open Source software
#16Fully agree. Some distros are packaging my software with bad patches constantly and then ignore requests to rename the package to make it clear that it's a fork. Unfortunately for small projects registering a trademark is just not feasible. I have considered going from actual open source to source available though.
GPLv3 allows adding a clause that would force them to change the name if they make changes. If they do it anyway they're in violation of the license, no trademark required.
[deleted]
Re: Why trademark Open Source software
#17Fully agree. Some distros are packaging my software with bad patches constantly and then ignore requests to rename the package to make it clear that it's a fork. Unfortunately for small projects registering a trademark is just not feasible. I have considered going from actual open source to source available though.
GPLv3 allows adding a clause that would force them to change the name if they make changes. If they do it anyway they're in violation of the license, no trademark required.
For those asking, it's in section seven, additional clauses:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material
you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright
holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with
terms:
[...]
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material,
or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
reasonable ways as different from the original version; or...Re: Why trademark Open Source software
#18Here's the problem. The article does not say what you have to do to trademark something, but it does point to an article on a law firm site: https://www.legalteamusa.net/trademark-law-first-to-use-v-fi.... The site says that you get trademark rights once you "use the mark in commerce". It then goes on to suggest that "use in commerce" means an actual sale. There's more here: https://www.cohnlg.com/trademark-use-in-commerce-heres-how-i...
So, what does this mean in an open source context? How can you meet the "use in commerce" requirement if you never actually offer anything for sale?
Re: Why trademark Open Source software
#19Your cert is self-signed and (my) FireFox blocks the webpage.
Re: Why trademark Open Source software
#20Here's the problem. The article does not say what you have to do to trademark something, but it does point to an article on a law firm site: https://www.legalteamusa.net/trademark-law-first-to-use-v-fi... . The site says that you get trademark rights once you "use the mark in commerce". It then goes on to suggest that "use in commerce" means an actual sale. There's more here: https://www.cohnlg.com/trademark-use-in-c…
This is a good read about trademarks in a FOSS context: https://fossmarks.org/
But, yes, you can trademark open source software even if you aren't charging for it. (IANAL)