4 ms·

This seems to be just a configuration file in React Native, not really a "copy" of the project in question. Apparently one of the Facebook developers reimpleme

by ratww 6y ago

This seems to be just a configuration file in React Native, not really a "copy" of the project in question. Apparently one of the Facebook developers reimplemented everything from scratch in his own account and then changed config files in the React Native repo to use his own implementation. If it was a clean-room implementation then there's nothing wrong with that. Apart from reusing the name, but that's another discussion.

gpm 6y ago
> If it was a clean-room implementation then there's nothing wrong with that. Except potentially trademark infringement (common law tradmark rights are acquired automatically - but the name is pretty generic), and potentially still copyright infringement if Oracle wins Oracle v. Google and there is enough creativity in the sequence structure and organization of the api for it to be subject to copyright/not fair use...
- xenocratus 6y ago
  > common law tradmark rights are acquired automatically - but the name is pretty generic I was wondering about that, because there are obviously many open source projects out there who share a name, some owned by companies, some by individuals. Here's a Google GitHub Page that talks about OSS trademarking in general: https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#common-law-trademarks https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#common-law... > Primarily, an unregistered mark must be: (1) used in commerce, and (2) used prior to the alleged trademark infringement. It may be counterintuitive that the “use in commerce” requirement does not necessarily mean a profitable or profit-seeking use. In fact, as the following case clarifies, the term “use in commerce” is used as a reference to Congress’s authority to regulate trademarks under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause rather than an intent to limit trademarks to profit-making activity. Where a developer released open source software under the name Coolmail, the court rejected the argument that the lack of direct profit from releasing software under the GNU General Public License rendered the original Coolmail name unenforceable as a trademark, holding that distributing software for end-users over the Internet satisfies the “use in commerce” requirement.
Xylakant 6y ago
Even if it's a clean-room implementation, I'd consider it good style to at least credit the original project with the idea. Where's the harm in that?
danabramov 6y ago
Hector’s colleague here. This is exactly what happened. Please see Hector’s response: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/issues/30395#issuecomment-727640067 https://github.com/facebook/react-native/issues/30395#issuec...

by ratww 6y ago

gpm 6y ago

> If it was a clean-room implementation then there's nothing wrong with that. Except potentially trademark infringement (common law tradmark rights are acquired automatically - but the name is pretty generic), and potentially still copyright infringement if Oracle wins Oracle v. Google and there is enough creativity in the sequence structure and organization of the api for it to be subject to copyright/not fair use...

xenocratus 6y ago
> common law tradmark rights are acquired automatically - but the name is pretty generic I was wondering about that, because there are obviously many open source projects out there who share a name, some owned by companies, some by individuals. Here's a Google GitHub Page that talks about OSS trademarking in general: https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#common-law-trademarks https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#common-law... > Primarily, an unregistered mark must be: (1) used in commerce, and (2) used prior to the alleged trademark infringement. It may be counterintuitive that the “use in commerce” requirement does not necessarily mean a profitable or profit-seeking use. In fact, as the following case clarifies, the term “use in commerce” is used as a reference to Congress’s authority to regulate trademarks under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause rather than an intent to limit trademarks to profit-making activity. Where a developer released open source software under the name Coolmail, the court rejected the argument that the lack of direct profit from releasing software under the GNU General Public License rendered the original Coolmail name unenforceable as a trademark, holding that distributing software for end-users over the Internet satisfies the “use in commerce” requirement.

Xylakant 6y ago

Even if it's a clean-room implementation, I'd consider it good style to at least credit the original project with the idea. Where's the harm in that?

danabramov 6y ago

Hector’s colleague here. This is exactly what happened. Please see Hector’s response: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/issues/30395#issuecomment-727640067 https://github.com/facebook/react-native/issues/30395#issuec...