21–30 of 51 posts
Twitter is the original link, this mastodon seems to be a mirror, so why not link there? https://twitter.com/steipete/status/1627315332716150785
How can Google own the IP if this is open source
IP =/= copyright See Audacity. Open source but the name is registered trademark and owned by the Muse Group https://www.audacityteam.org/copyright/ https://github.com/audacity/audacity Or Blender also another open source project but registered trademark https://www.blender.org/about/logo/ https://github.com/blender Krita too https://krita.org/en/item/krita-trademark-policy/ https://invent.kde.org/graphics/krita There…
EDIT: I'm aware the original twoot says this verbatim, it's just not correct
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me add a very relevant anecdote of the difference between those things. Kurento the project is Apache-2 open-source, you'll find all its source code here: https://github.com/Kurento/kurento its website was kurento .org but the trademark of the name (and the domain) is owned by Twilio, who recently had the gesture of redirecting all accesses from this domain to their own, without prior warning. No replies to email…
Wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't a "let's send all the random domains we have lying around to the main site" bulk change and whoever did it didn't realise and if anybody's reading the emails they have no idea where to start finding out who that was. I mean, that's not exactly great either if true, but I think it's just as much a possibility as this being intentional.
Oof I didn’t even know Google acquired fastlane, this is THE standard toolset for automating shipping iOS and Android apps, I’ve used it in every job I’ve had. I am sure Google is using it extensively internally as well. I am really hoping the maintainers can get some money for the value they provide. I would also hope Apple could provide some bucks towards this tool it is really necessary for making iOS delivery not…
So Google owns the IP but doesn't support the maintainers that do all the work and keep it running. They take the credit, the value of the brand and do nothing. Can't the maintainers do a fork, continue their work with a new name and then maybe start a foundation or something to attract money and support it? Fastlane is a very mission critical piece of software for many companies, I'm sure some of them would support…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google holds the copyright and they choose to license their IP under an open source license. You could be thinking of public domain.
So, maintainers can just fork it under different name?
So Google owns the IP but doesn't support the maintainers that do all the work and keep it running. They take the credit, the value of the brand and do nothing. Can't the maintainers do a fork, continue their work with a new name and then maybe start a foundation or something to attract money and support it? Fastlane is a very mission critical piece of software for many companies, I'm sure some of them would support…
It's an MIT license. Worrying about who "owns the IP" for an open source project when you could fork any time seems a little much.