5 ms·
You're using PG's code in a trademarked/copyrighted environment (the domain is called exactly HackerNews). That's blatant copyright infringement, you should hav
by vladd 16y ago
You're using PG's code in a trademarked/copyrighted environment (the domain is called exactly HackerNews). That's blatant copyright infringement, you should have gotten YC's permission before, not after the site went live. What you have done is illegal in both US and India.
You should respect the law and change the name or take the site offline until you receive appropriate permissions.
Please note that even licenses as GPL or MPL (that govern the Firefox code for example) give you permission to use the code, not the trademarks of the project. Ubuntu had to make a Linux package called "abrowser" ( https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+package/abrowser https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+package/abrowser ) simply because Mozilla didn't agree with branding their modifications as "Firefox".
- srean 16y agoNot sure why this got downvoted. Seems a perfectly legitimate statement.
- alextgordon 16y agoI may be wrong, but "Hacker News" does not appear to be trademarked in the US. And the code is open source. So which particular laws are being broken here?
- dogofthunder 16y agothe existence or non-existence of a trademark registration filed with the USPTO doesn't necessarily mean that the name is trademarked or not. registration helps when you're suing, but trademark rights can attach without registration.
- alextgordon 16y agoBut there's other sites using the HN name, presumably without permission (e.g. hackernewsers.com). Surely if PG did sue, his case would be quite weak. It also occurred to me that hackernews.in is clearly a website aimed at Indians, so I don't know to what extent US law applies. Anyway, it seems that the name is going to be changed, so this whole trademark point becomes moot. http://hackernews.in/item?id=375 http://hackernews.in/item?id=375