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

Why trademark Open Source software

lightmeter.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Why trademark Open Source software

#31

Post by lawl »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #26
lawl wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you happen to have a link with more info on how such a clause would look like? That sounds really interesting.

I do not, but I bet you could find a bigger project that has a such a clause and ask them if you could copy it.

Thanks, I did find an example here:

> The Coppermine Dev Team requires as additional term of the license Coppermine comes with that modified versions of Coppermine conveyed to others should be marked in a reasonable way. Modified versions mustn't be conveyed to others under the same name as the original Coppermine release. Package name, source code and the output generated by the modified version should make it obvious for potential users that the modified version and the original Coppermine version that the modified version is based upon differ.

https://coppermine-gallery.net/docs/curr/en/copyrights.htm#c...

and a PDF talking a bit more about section 7 here: http://www.mmmtechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PLI-Ope...

So I think i understand this a bit better now. Maybe this helps someone else too.

(raw GPL legalese is difficult for me to fully parse not being a native speaker)

Re: Why trademark Open Source software

#33

Post by nickthenerd »

I think its important to understand what you are also getting into with a trademark. They mention:

    actively asserted and defended in order to have legal meaning.
This is a critical piece of owning a trademark. It must be defended which means that you have to issue cease and desist letters, normally engaging an attorney to do so, or else you risk losing your trademark altogether or it becoming genericized, i.e. 'Kleenex': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark

Re: Why trademark Open Source software

#34

Post by samtuke »

laurent123456 wrote: post #11

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.

Just by starting to use the TM symbol next to words or images you intend to trademark is enough to offer some immediate and free protection (IANL)

Re: Why trademark Open Source software

#35

Post by zodiakzz »

nickthenerd wrote: post #33

I think its important to understand what you are also getting into with a trademark. They mention: actively asserted and defended in order to have legal meaning. This is a critical piece of owning a trademark. It must be defended which means that you have to issue cease and desist letters, normally engaging an attorney to do so, or else you risk losing your trademark altogether or it becoming genericized, i.e. 'Kleen…

Only in 0.000001% of cases when your product is a massive hit.

>A generic trademark, also known as a genericized trademark or proprietary eponym, is a trademark or brand name that, because of its popularity or significance, has become the generic term for, or synonymous with, a general class of product or service.

Re: Why trademark Open Source software

#36

Post by teh_klev »

I mostly agree with the sentiment of the article and it's fair enough to allow a Free Software project and its maintainers to defend themselves from being misrepresented by using trademarks.

This bit is trickier though:

Neither the terms “Open Source” nor “Free Software” are themselves trademarked, which unfortunately allows anyone to use them to describe anything – companies regularly exploit this to undermine public understanding of the freedoms which the words originally conveyed.

Should those terms have been trademarked in the past? They seem awfully generic and nebulous. Could you have even gotten a trademark for "Open Source" or "Free Software"? Do trademark registrations allow you to be specific about what these two terms mean?

Re: Why trademark Open Source software

#37

Post by LukeShu »

teh_klev wrote: post #36

I mostly agree with the sentiment of the article and it's fair enough to allow a Free Software project and its maintainers to defend themselves from being misrepresented by using trademarks. This bit is trickier though: Neither the terms “Open Source” nor “Free Software” are themselves trademarked, which unfortunately allows anyone to use them to describe anything – companies regularly exploit this to undermine publi…

(IANAL) "Free software" I don't think would have ever been granted, but as hard as it is to imagine now: the phrase "open source" didn't always exist, and wasn't coined until 1998. There's a case to be made that the OSI should have pursued trademarking "Open Source" upon their founding in 1998 (I think there's also a pretty good case that trademarking it would have hurt their mission, as businesses might be afraid of using the term).

Re: Why trademark Open Source software

#38

Post by MayeulC »

nickthenerd wrote: post #33

I think its important to understand what you are also getting into with a trademark. They mention: actively asserted and defended in order to have legal meaning. This is a critical piece of owning a trademark. It must be defended which means that you have to issue cease and desist letters, normally engaging an attorney to do so, or else you risk losing your trademark altogether or it becoming genericized, i.e. 'Kleen…

This is often repeated, but misguided: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...

Genericides do occur, but they are rather exceptional, and you generally can't do much about it (imagine the public starting to talk of dashboards as grafanas).

Cease-and-desists should probably be reserbed for severe missuse, such as a competitor selling their product as yours, etc.

Re: Why trademark Open Source software

#39

Post by samtuke »

LukeShu wrote: post #37
teh_klev wrote: post #36

I mostly agree with the sentiment of the article and it's fair enough to allow a Free Software project and its maintainers to defend themselves from being misrepresented by using trademarks. This bit is trickier though: Neither the terms “Open Source” nor “Free Software” are themselves trademarked, which unfortunately allows anyone to use them to describe anything – companies regularly exploit this to undermine publi…

(IANAL) "Free software" I don't think would have ever been granted, but as hard as it is to imagine now: the phrase "open source" didn't always exist, and wasn't coined until 1998. There's a case to be made that the OSI should have pursued trademarking "Open Source" upon their founding in 1998 (I think there's also a pretty good case that trademarking it would have hurt their mission, as businesses might be afraid of…

I recall that they did try, but didn't succeed, because it was consided to be too generic. But can't find a reference for that :\

Re: Why trademark Open Source software

#40

Post by LukeShu »

samtuke wrote: post #39
LukeShu wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(IANAL) "Free software" I don't think would have ever been granted, but as hard as it is to imagine now: the phrase "open source" didn't always exist, and wasn't coined until 1998. There's a case to be made that the OSI should have pursued trademarking "Open Source" upon their founding in 1998 (I think there's also a pretty good case that trademarking it would have hurt their mission, as businesses might be afraid of…

I recall that they did try, but didn't succeed, because it was consided to be too generic. But can't find a reference for that :\

It seems you are correct https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
Post reply on HN