61–69 of 69 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't tell what point you're trying to make here?
That dismissing the concerns of organizations, big and small, that have contributed to Ruby's success is intellectually dishonest.
Interesting. > I have registered my existing trademark on the Bundler project. As all of this was happening I had wondered if there was going to be some kind of copyright dispute, but I guess it's gonna be trademark based. Does anyone have any insights into how this might play out? How do trademark disputes tend to happen? (I assume this is in the US?)
After fifteen years of not enforcing the trademark, a common legal interpretation in case of a conflict would be to consider the trademark genericized or abandoned. Which means any trademark owners apparently were not interested in enforcing their trademarks and effectively abandoned their rights. Of course this is not guaranteed and just a common interpretation of trademark law by judges in trademark related cases.…
In this case, 'Bundler' still refers pretty clearly to a single brand-name utility within the Ruby ecosystem. However, the goods/services in the trademark registration application [1] covers "Downloadable computer software for managing, processing, optimizing, and organizing source code and dependencies", which is a broader class of services. The descriptive word "bundler" is quite widely used in the JavaScript ecosystem, for example, to describe this general type of dependency-management software (esbuild calls itself "An extremely fast bundler for the web", for example). I could certainly see the "Bundler" trademark being contested as a descriptive mark that hasn't acquired significant secondary meaning in that broader context, so it will be interesting to see whether this trademark application is upheld upon review (or potential opposition).
[1] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=99407082&caseSearchType=U...
Weird, seems like a lot of ugly publicity to create more work for themselves. I wonder why Shopify chose to do this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please explain - which organizations and legal structures, and how did they confer ownership? Be specific.
It's explained in the article with a direct link to the merger agreement https://andre.arko.net/2025/09/25/bundler-belongs-to-the-rub...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that wouldn't matter though, would it? a genericized trademark is not the problem. the problem is ruby central wanting to take control of the name/trademark. if they want the trademark now, they now have to fight, and if in that fight, it is established that nobody gets to own the trademark, then the current trademark registration would have achieved its goal.
If nobody owns the trademark then they're free to use it. The person who wrote this post tried to register the trademark to prevent them from using it. If the trademark is determined to be abandoned and generic then they cannot stop Ruby Central from using it.
> back when “Carlhuda” was a super-prolific author of Ruby libraries, including most of the work to modularize Rails for version 3 Wow, hadn't thought about that in a while. For a laugh, go back and take a look at some of the architectural choices they were replacing.
I realize this will come off as snide, and result in downvotes, but looking to the success of Ruby and Rails today, the "community" is as much the money that's been poured into the ecosystem as it is the warm fuzzies and volunteers. Without the millions of dollars companies like Heroku, Shopify, Basecamp, Github, 37 Signals, and others have spent in terms of money and developer-hours, the projects we know and love wo…
Very unclear if you read the post and understood that the author is actually a full blown OSS contributor and maintainer - and the point of the post is that they built Bundler, which Ruby Central has now “stolen”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very unclear if you read the post and understood that the author is actually a full blown OSS contributor and maintainer - and the point of the post is that they built Bundler, which Ruby Central has now “stolen”.
It's MIT licensed legally there was nothing stolen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's MIT licensed legally there was nothing stolen.
That would only be the case if they forked it - but not a hostile takeover of the original repository.