8 Aug
2009
8 Aug
'09
10:06 a.m.
On Saturday 08 August 2009 07:08:25 you wrote:
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I guess it should be possible to make out which project is which
project. I would be fine with "Impr-visor" and "Improvisor" or what
ever
names Bob and you are using, but I don't hink it's perfect with those
names. They are "very" similar forks, so "very" similar, but
different
names IMO are an good idea.
Yes it is possible to figure out. It is very easy when people have some
different documentation, copyright information, and so on. It is not
a real problem. Those who think it is a problem need to do more reading
and reflecting on the matter. This is FOSS, not commercial enterprise,
things do not need to operate exactly the same as in proprietary
situations. That goes as much for trademarks as it does for copyrights.
Since there is so much confusion surrounding how copyrights work
in FOSS, it should be no surprise that similar misunderstandings exist
for trademarks in the same situation.
Consider patents also. Patents on software are a big potential problem that
has come to the top of the list. In the past they were not given nearly as
much consideration, but the issue was forced into the FOSS world by commercial
interests. The last thing that is needed in FOSS is free software projects
going after other projects of the same nature merely for a name, but it has
already started to happen. Those that do this are not really protecting
anything that is of a FOSS nature, they do it for commercial interests. And
that is where you see trademarks come up, when some company is doing
FOSS, not usually when it is a person or small group doing it. If a small
FOSS project goes after another one for trademark it is because they do not
understand how and when trademarks apply and what issues it makes
for FOSS.
There is
a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the
front
even though they were doing FOSS. Trademarks in FOSS are just as bad as
software patents. Too bad most people do not get that.
Okay, maybe for names and logos used by FLOSS, the creative commons
should be forced as an agreement or something similar to this. IMO the same name would be bad, and completely
different names would be
bad too. Anyway, I would like to have less confusable naming, that
however will highlight the relationship.
No reason to. It is all just preference. If you have a preference, that is
your right.
Don't worry I have already been through this trademark dispute thing
with another project I forked. They made all kinds of crazy claims
and did not understand how futile it is for one FOSS project to try
to go after another one. I still have my similar name even though
they have a trademark. Trademarks are for commercial interest.
Claimed infringements on trademarks have to show that the existence
of a similarly named product causes or potentially causes damage
to the trademark holders product, company, bottom line, and so on.
When you fork a FOSS project the intent is to improve upon something,
not distribute a product of lesser quality. Most trademark infringements
are about the passing off of a lesser quality product than the original.
In FOSS how can this be determined? The license used in FOSS comes
with no warranty, no guarantee, and so on. Can you see the futility
of such a claim now?
Raymond