3 ms·

You're right but you lack context about what's wrong with the Caddy change. I wrote up my concerns in detail in the original thread: https://news.ycombinator.c

• rocqua 9y ago
  How does the trademark stuff interact with distributions potentially providing binaries via their package managers?
  • Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    It doesn't.
    • jlgaddis 9y ago
      Have we forgotten about Mozilla/Debian [0,1] already? A hypothetical -- but certainly possible -- scenario: $distro (e.g. Debian, RHEL, Ubuntu) takes the Caddy source, removes the controversial header, builds a binary package, and distributes it as "caddy" via their standard repositories. Light Code Labs doesn't approve of this and asks/demands that $distro stop using the trademark. $distro now has to make a choice: remove the "unapproved" changes from their package, stop distributing their package, or rebrand the software under a different name. (That potentially could have happened here [2,3] but it was quickly resolved well before it got to that point.) I don't think "it doesn't" is correct -- at least not for 100% of cases. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_Debian https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_b... [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238315 [3]: https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2 https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2